Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/03/27 00:56:
What I do is
[...]
* highway=service service=driveway
ways connecting to the real roads and sort of going near where you
are trying to go when you want to park in the parking lot (carpark),
just enough to be connected, and trying to pick the places that are
more important/through roads
Well this is an idea, however it is not what service=driveway was intendend
for. It is another value that data consumers treat as 'minor' since it
means a single little way into a property, and thus does not provide
structure for the parking lot.
The latter is more or less what your service=parking_access is trying to
do. But if for example you want to pick someone up at the front door
of a supermarket, and not park, you'd use them. So parking_access
really isn't quite right for most of these ways.
Yes, Martin had already pointed out that we should not limit the value to
parking.
Tod Fitch wrote on 2016/03/27 05:06:
> It seems to me that any highway=service ought to have a service=* tag.
Ok so you do feel the void.
> Whether the specific case being discussed needs a new service=parking_access
tag
> or if service=driveway is okay would be the discussion I’m interested in.
As said, =parking_aisle and =driveway are both minor, we need a classifier for
the major service road.
> To Tom’s point, I think a roads for many commercial areas would have a big
grey
> area in deciding between driveway and parking_access as often the route to the
> main entrance and/or loading docks is indistinguishable from the other roads
> in the area that simply service parking.
As =main is occupied by railway mappers, =access is still on the table.
Another idea would be =major, clearly indicating the two classes of service
roads.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
