On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 08:53, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> A bit messy, but how about >> amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only >> > > Big problem right there: you're expanding on the access tag. Some on this > list will > take great exception to that. Some editors will take even greater > exception to it as > they populate drop-downs from the wiki, so when you map a road the access > drop-down > will include yes, no, private, vehicle_charging_only. Which is why the > parking_space > proposal invented access:<role>. And even that is pushing things, a > little. >
Yes, you're quite right there - I hadn't thought that side of access= through > car_charging=yes/no >> truck_charging=yes/no >> hgv_charging=yes/no >> > > And this will re-open hostilities in a different argument about the > undesirability of having all > those different binary tags instead of charging=car|truck|hgv. Or was it > the other way > around that was undesirable? I forget now. > I "think" it was charging=car|truck|hgv arrangement that wasn't liked because of semi-colons, but you're right - it could be the other way round! On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 21:56, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 01:37, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> amenity=charging _space? Says what it is. >> > > First problem is that goes against the design of amenity=parking_space. > Somebody > will then decide to have amenity=disabled_parking_space rather than use the > appropriate subtag with amenity=parking_space. > & then, in a few years as electric vehicles become more popular, you'll have disabled, charging bays! (Which started as a joke but is actually quite correct - charging bike racks, perhaps?) Thanks Graeme >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
