2011/4/11 Flaimo <fla...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am not sure if it is a good idea to put all these new tags into the >> amenity namespace. Amenities are "general" features (e.g. mapnik tries >> to render all of them) and the proposed tags like parking_space would >> in a complete mapping state clutter the map. > > i think, that it doesn't really matter under which key parking spaces > and entrances are mapped. which one would you suggest? the parking key > is already taken.
OK, that is a point. Well, keep it in amenity then. > while you could use amenity=parking_space for itself, > amenity=parking_entrance doesn't make much sense without the context > of the relation which holds the information of the actual > (underground) parking facility. if you want to use you could add it to nodes part of amenity=parking, and there would be no need for a relation. > amenity=parking_space without a relation, you could do so, but then > you could stick with amenity=parking anyway. I think we _should_ stick with amenity=parking. It is the most often used amenity tag with 546 695 occurences. You should not try to deprecate it. Instead I would welcome amenity=parking_space for the net parking area (nodes or areas, in the case of bigger parkings inside an area amenity=parking, where the name would go to this outer area) allowing for additional detail like number of lots, dedicated disabled parking, etc. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging