2011/4/17 Flaimo <[email protected]>: > since no new input came in over the last week after my second RFC > mail, i started the voting phase for > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking
OK, this looks almost nice now ;-) Stil some definitions could be cleaner: 1. Why do you not want all entrances of parkings to be mapped as amenity=parking_entrace, but rather reduce it's use to "Entrances to underground or multi-storey parking facilities, in case their physical presence can’t be fully mapped." I don't see why the entrance of a parking that is not underground or mulistorey should not be mapped with this tag. I also don't see why this should not be mapped in case that it is possible to fully map their physical prensence. Why not simply: "General entrances to a parking facility". The rest of your definition could become an example (rather then beeing used to exclude other usages). (I used "general entrance" here as opposed to "all entrances", which might not be accessible to the public). There should also be a way to distinct entraces for pedestrians and those for cars. What about exits from parking facilities? 2. Relation to amenity=parking currently the wiki states: "What about the old amenity=parking? This new tagging scheme isn't meant to replace amenity=parking. In areas where there is no or low res satellite images available the current mapping scheme should still be used, also it's easier for new mappers to use that simple tag without a relation. This proposal is meant to be used by experienced mappers in areas where high resolution satellite images are available and where there is a need for more detailed information (for example car rentals services at airports). Though is can be used for underground- and multi-storey parking (using layers=*), it’s mainly targeted at surface parking." ____ I think this is not hitting the point. You still are implying that parkings should better be mapped with this proposal in case hires photos are available, you are still reinventing the wheel for parkings requiring a site relation (and not specifying which tags should be used on it). As I see this, amenity=parking should remain the tag for the parking (where you set the parking=surface/underground/multistorey-tag, the fee tag, the name tag, the website-tag etc.) and your proposal should limit itself in offering a more detailed method for single/multiple "pure" parking spaces (plus all the other nice ideas like parking_entrace, etc.). There is absolutely no need to change amenity=parking or to offer alternative ways to map the same thing. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
