According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.
So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are available for disabled people. If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to double-counting. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/17/20, PanierAvide <panierav...@riseup.net> wrote: > Hello Lionel, > > I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of > amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use > case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for > capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or > parking_space. > > Best regards, > > Adrien P. > > Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit : >> Hello everyone, >> >> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't >> use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But >> why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a >> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a >> parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is >> not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. >> I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents' >> parking spaces in the law). >> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of >> "capacity=*". ^_^ >> >> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging >> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Lionel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
