"disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki.
I would say setting capacity and capacity:disabled to the same value makes it clear already that the whole parking lot is only for disabled parking, and it follows a documented tagging scheme that relevant data consumers should already be processing correctly. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Willis <jo...@mac.com> > Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 13:59 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=disabled > > > > Javbw > > > On May 10, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common > in my country. > > I know I am just jumping in - but this is also something I am > interested in. > > I know if we have a big parking lot waiting the a few disabled > spots along an isle near the store entrance, than > capacity:disabled=4 added to a normal parking lot is appropriate. > > But the instances I am trying to map are large disabled-only lots. > They (sometimes) have a gate that the security guard opens, > allowing anyone with a disabled plackerd to enter. It is a > separately mappable lot near the normal access=customers. Most of > them are physically separated from any other parking by kerbs and > shrubs. > > I really think access=disabled is appropriate for this parking lot. > All others are denied. > > Having to map space-by-space to just show that this *lot* is > disabled-only seems weird. > > Javbw > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging