I'd have called it amenity=parking+access=private and then added a way through the area for pedestrians (tagging individual parking aisles, probably, plus any footway links to connect it up)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Simone Saviolo <[email protected]>wrote: > 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson <[email protected]>: > >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does > >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that > >> you can't park there. > > > > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that > > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current > > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in > > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you > > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. > > Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is > needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is > phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact > that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, > it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good > example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it). > > > cheers, > > Martin > > Ciao, > > Simone > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
