In the parking example that i talk about, the multipolygon is not usable if i want to indicate the specificity of each part of the parking lot like capacity or capacity:disabled (as the tagging is global for every outer part). I like the site relation as it allows to also group the vending machine or the amenity=parking_entrance for underground parking (as a car park may have both underground + overground parkings). I find a site relation more practical in such cases and I never used it technically for malls with only overground parkings (but that was in the original proposal example i think ^^).
My use case was more about the underground parking where I grouped all the parking_entrance (both pedestrian and for vehicle) with a "site=parking" relation. One example is this one : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8425228#map=18/50.66911/4.61226 (there are one vehicle entrance, one vehicle exit, multiple pedestrian entrance/exit and few vending machines for it). *Do you have a better way of tagging this ? ^^* I just used what i found on the wiki at the time, and it was clean in my opinion. :-p Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> a écrit : > Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[email protected] > >: > >> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are >>> tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that >>> sane, or do I need to do this differently? >>> >> >> Doesn't look sane at present. You have combined one public parking area >> with two private ones. If they're all private, for use by the >> restaurant, mark >> them all as private. >> > > > if they are for the clients of the restaurant, the typical tagging is > access=customers > Also you should not have 2 objects amenity=parking which cover the same > area (regardless of additional tags). > > > >> >> Even so, is a multipolygon giving any information that couldn't be had >> by separate parking areas with the appropriate operator tag? >> > > > +1, this is what I would choose, no relation at all. It is also what you > can probably argue for "on the ground": two parkings operated by the same > business, not one parking spread over 2 areas. > > > > >> >> (BTW, is there any accepted way to tag a 'carry-out only' space?) >>> >> >> If you're talking about one (or both) of those parking areas by the >> restaurant, then it is (or they are) not really a parking area. I'd >> probably make it a closed way with highway=service + area=yes >> and then risk the wrath of purists by naming it "Pick-up Zone". >> > > > there is the "maxstay" tag which can be used with a value like 5 or 15 > minutes. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxstay#values > > Cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
