2011/4/18 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > 2. Relation to amenity=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).
sorry, strike through the last sentence, the site relations are well defined and will work. In some cases they might be overkill, but they do work and the suggested tags seem to be fine. I suggest to change the paragraph about "old" amenity=parking to something like: "amenity=parking can still be used instead of a site relation, site=parking. This proposal aims at collecting details for more complex cases. If you feel that amenity=parking fits better for your case, simply stick to it." Keep it short. Why expand on hires imagery? I'd clearly point out in the proposal that amenity=parking_space might often be additional objects inside an amenity=parking area. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
