On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:06, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/07/2020 17.26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > From the geometry, I'd say that was a parking lot. > > Currently, I have the non-parallel spots marked as a lot. To my mind, > parallel parking and on-street parking are nearly synonymous. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by those terms as you're American. The image in the wiki for parking lanes matches what I expect of it. As in this situation near me: https://goo.gl/maps/WUZKmhQTDSRsgnDx7 on the right of the road are double yellow lines, which mean "no parking or waiting at any time" (but there are exceptions) and on the left is a single yellow line which means "parking and waiting permitted some of the time" (though there are exceptions and provisions and it gets complicated). The left is a parking lane, as I understand it. There are no parking spaces marked. > > From the fact that parking spaces are marked, it's not a parking > > lane, in my opinion. > > Well it's certainly not a parking *lane*; you clearly are not meant to > possibly drive through it. I was thinking that the fact the parking > spaces are arranged so as to not occlude traffic was what was inclining > me to model it as a "lot". > I take the marked parking spaces as a very strong hint that it's a lot. It still depends on surrounding circumstances and context, but if they're marked as parking spaces the purpose of those areas of hard paving is for parking. That makes them a parking lot rather than roadside parking. Others differ on this. > > Really, it's the notion of a parking lot for which the aisle is also a > main road that's throwing me... > The main road is a WIDE parking aisle. :) Alternatively, it's a parking lot with a very wide entrance. Yeah, it's a bit weird, but how else do you represent the parking area in a way that indicates there isn't a narrow entrance from which you then fan out into parking spaces but that each parking space may be entered directly from the main road? As far as I can determine, the closest way we have of representing the situation is a parking lot that abuts the highway. It renders in a way that is reasonably interpreted. The alternatives are 1) A detached parking lot with no indication of how the car "jumps" from the highway into it. One of those appeared on this list a few days ago. Helicopter parking? 2) A detached parking lot with an access service road (that doesn't exist) linking it to the highway so it is connected? That's not really how it is. 3) A parking lot that joins the highway. Seems to work. > > Yeah, that line of thinking is similar in effect to asking if it > occludes normal traffic flow. Different questions, but likely to have > the same answer. > Same question, different phrasing. > > > This is how I handled a similar one: > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08562&mlon=-4.65829#map=19/52.08562/-4.65829 > > > > Somebody objected that whilst that looked right when rendered, when > > you examined it in the editor it misleadingly implied that you could > > park with one end of your car blocking half of the street. > > Well, there's an easy solution to that; map the spaces, also ;-) Yeah, but the spaces don't render. Oh wow! I just checked one of your later examples and parking spaces now render. I'd given up on hoping that they would render. Doesn't fix the example I'm thinking of, though - it's clearly a pregnant bulge that is for parking, but no spaces are marked. > . That said, I find that attitude slightly asinine; it's normal for a > parking > lot area to include at least parts of the aisles. > In one sense it's correct. At a level of highway modelling we don't do and may never do. In terms of what gets rendered (where the renderer draws roads on a layer above parking lots), it's perfectly comprehensible. Since we don't have a better way of representing what's there, I ignored the objection. > > > I did one car park which attempted to deal with that complaint: > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.10572&mlon=-4.37367#map=19/52.10572/-4.37367 > > but it looks so ugly that I doubt I'll do that again. > > Agreed (on the 'looking ugly'). :) > > Anyway, your example would be much more sane if the entire road had a > mapped area, rather than just the little piece by the parking lot. > Yeah, but that ugly bit is also a lowered sidewalk. That car park has a very, very wide entrance (the width of the car park itself). What I did was a compromise, and it's ugly. But without mapping (and rendering) sidewalks, and mapping (and rendering) the true widths of roads, there's no good way of handling it, just a variety of bad ways. > > ...and to be honest, another argument for modeling as lots is that the > parking_lane tagging is rather more obtuse... > There is that. Which is why I tend not to bother with it. Especially as it means surveying and finding out the restrictions on times. And re-surveying fairly frequently in case the restrictions change. I leave it as a pleasant surprise for visitors when they find they can actually park there -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
