For what it's worth, ordinarily I will map a stretch of road with parallel or diagonal parking by drawing a parking area that shares nodes with the road centre-line. The routers find it when asked to find parking, it doesn't render badly, and I think it expresses the intention. If there is parallel or diagonal parking on both sides of the road, it looks like a road going through a parking field, but if it's `highway=residential` (or `unclassified` or `tertiary` or whatever) the routers don't appear to care.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:54 AM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:26, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 24/07/2020 10.18, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > Sounds like the same thing, Near enough. Especially if some streets >> > have signs saying "no parking at any time." >> >> Right; I didn't mean "we don't have on-street parking", I meant we don't >> mark it like that. >> > > Tomato/tomahto. :) > >> >> Relatedly: I would call that "on-street parking". To me, a "parking >> lane" is actually more like the NYC video I linked, i.e. a space that is >> dedicated to *parking* and not intended to be used by through traffic. >> > > That's my take on it, too. > > This is probably a large part of the confusion, as it seems that what >> OSM calls a "parking lane" is what I would call "on-street parking", and >> what I call a "parking lane", OSM considers a parking lot. >> > > A lot of the documentation was written by people who don't have British > English as a first language. You have to look at the pictures, too. > >> >> >> BTW, this is what NYC apparently considers a "parking lane": >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJv4oleZAhQ >> > >> > That's a "floating parking lane," according to the video. >> >> Yeah, I don't know what "floating" means there. >> > > You don't? It even explained it in the video. Or the description. > Somewhere. > The parking spaces are detached from the sidewalk because there's a > bicycle lane between the two. > >> >> > Looks to me like a parking lot adjoining a road at one side and >> > adjoining a cycle lane at the other. I say this because of what is >> > visible at the left of that "floating parking lane" - an obstacle. >> > Even with no vehicles parked there, through traffic would be >> > obstructed. Difficult to be sure, from the video, though. I'm glad >> > I don't have anything like that around here, otherwise I'd have to >> > figure out how to map it. >> >> It's pretty typical of what I'm dealing with in Quantico, though. We >> seem to have come to an agreement to map this as a "lot". >> > > It's how I'd handle the one in the video. But that's just me, bringing my > own cultural assumptions and idiosyncrasies with me. And I'm > very idiosyncratic. > >> >> > Was there through traffic in the parking lane itself in the above video? >> >> I can state with some confidence that there isn't *intended* to be. >> > > I don't recall seeing any. I don't want to use up more of my > download limit checking, so I'm relying on my increasingly- > defective memory. > > Again, I think we've agreed to treat that as a "lot". (Which I believe >> is what I was trying to say, admittedly very badly, with the above.) >> > > I think it's a floating parking lot not a floating parking lane. :) > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging