Long time No. P. 0.....?pxo.llkjkt
On Fri 7 Aug 2020, 21:55 , <tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Tobias Knerr) > 2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Tobias Knerr) > 3. Re: Electric scooter parking (Jan Michel) > 4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Jan Michel) > 5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Philip Barnes) > 6. Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops (德泉 談) > 7. Re: Electric scooter parking (Matthew Woehlke) > 8. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Matthew Woehlke) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:11:31 +0200 > From: Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types > Message-ID: <d88f3172-6c18-1533-881f-2fbba4bd9...@tobias-knerr.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking > > I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: > > Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's > supposed to mean parking spaces for compact cars, but the first Google > result for me is some parking system for trucks at motorways. Better to > avoid the ambiguity. > > Also, I guess we need to decide if we need to be able to map something > that fits more than one class, like a takeaway parking spot reserved for > users with disabilities. If so, we could consider a solution something > like parking_space:takeaway=yes, or a clearly defined meaning for > semicolon-separated values. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:13:24 +0200 > From: Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types > Message-ID: <8741af4a-79d9-33f9-1cb6-3f0914445...@tobias-knerr.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 07.08.20 15:36, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > That said... now I'm on the fence. FWIW, the amenity=parking page > > mentions parking_space=disabled as being supported by at least one > > renderer, while one has to do quite some digging for how to use > > access:*. Clearly we *do* need to improve the documentation here! Also, > > it's less obvious how one would apply access restrictions for e.g. > > charging, compact. > > I've always felt that using "disabled" as an access _key_ (i.e. > disabled=* or access:disabled=*) was somewhat at odds with the usual > logic of putting groups of users in the _value_ of access tags. > > I like that parking_space=disabled sidesteps this issue. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:13:03 +0200 > From: Jan Michel <j...@mueschelsoft.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking > Message-ID: <116a04ad-52ba-2c38-e3e9-675956709...@mueschelsoft.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07.08.20 19:09, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org > > <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by ba...@ursamundi.org > > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > > wrote: > > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes > > seems like a terrible idea to me > > Why? That's actually pretty good. amenity=parking is for motor > > vehicle parking, electric scooters are a part of that. > > Mostly because it will break all current users of amenity=parking > > and at least for me place to place > > electric scooter is not the same object as a car parking (in the > > same way as bicycle parking > > is not the same object as a car parking). > > I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is > > already broken in advance. > > +1 from my side. > > It might be useful to have two different top-level amenity tags for > parking lots for large and small vehicles, but not one tag for every > type of vehicle. > > Any new tagging scheme must be able to support parking lots that are > dedicated to several types of vehicles - at least those of similar size. > We must be able to tag a shared motorcycle/moped/electric scooter > parking area. > > If we really need a new top-level tag, it has to be something like > *amenity=small_vehicle_parking* and comprise all of motorcycles, moped, > mofa, speed_pedelec, scooters (of any kind) and so on. Further details > could then be given by access tags to specify which kind of vehicles can > be parked there. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:17:12 +0200 > From: Jan Michel <j...@mueschelsoft.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types > Message-ID: <rgk5r8$in1$1...@ciao.gmane.io> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07.08.20 19:11, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking > > I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: > > > > Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's > > supposed to mean parking spaces for compact cars, > > You also have to keep in mind that what a 'compact car' is strongly > depends on the region. What counts as 'compact' in the US is a 'regular > sized' car in Europe and is a 'large' car in densly populated areas like > Tokyo. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:39:37 +0100 > From: Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types > Message-ID: > <561c594960bd61730e14575e258ac2b094a86823.ca...@trigpoint.me.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:09 +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original > > post....is this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own > > value? Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in > > the UK? > > I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special > spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time > to clear the queue. Is that what this means? > > We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to > collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there > is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away. > Again is that what this means. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200807/ff4082d4/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:59:04 +0000 (UTC) > From: 德泉 談 <tran0408tran04...@yahoo.com.tw> > To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops > Message-ID: <2094538961.1013874.1596826744...@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hello > > Sorry for pause the bubble tea proposal for a month due to my personal > reason. > > In the discussion in June and July some people think the tag for bubble > tea is too specific but there is a flaw in existing tags, so I made a new > draft for containing more type of takeaway beverages shops, and it's still > unsure whether use amenity=* or shop=*. > > Please comment and help me to complete the proposal, thanks. > > Tan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:47:37 -0400 > From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org>, Jan Michel <j...@mueschelsoft.de> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking > Message-ID: <f7acbf70-fa2d-d130-0e95-5cd25b8d6...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07/08/2020 11.55, Jan Michel wrote: > > Note that we also lack a proper way to tag parking lots for trucks. > > This sounds like a good candidate for expanding capacity:* / > parking_space=*, at least in the case of mixed-use lots. In general, I > agree it would be good to have a better way to tag parking areas for > specific vehicle types. > > BTW, how are hitching rails (i.e. "horse parking") mapped? ;-) > > -- > Matthew > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:54:56 -0400 > From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org>, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types > Message-ID: <b2c15d1e-4394-fa63-0285-4117caaf6...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07/08/2020 14.39, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special > > spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time > > to clear the queue. Is that what this means? > > "No", because those are not *parking* spaces as was previously > discussed. (Um... not sure where, possibly in one of the threads linked > in the proposal.) OTOH *I* wouldn't be adverse to overloading it with > that meaning, but technically speaking such spaces are not *parking* > spaces, because you are not supposed to park in them. (Note the > difference between "parking", "standing" and "stopping". You are > supposed to *stop* in them, but not *park*.) > > > We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to > > collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there > > is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away. > > Again is that what this means. > > That is explicitly "standing". Previous comments apply. > > Again, the *intended* use is for *parking* spaces (park, go inside, > collect a to-go order, possibly *order* a to-go order and wait for it to > be made... but don't sit down and eat at the restaurant). However *I* > would not object to using it for any sort of parking/standing/stopping > space where you are expected to not be long (and the space is > specifically signed with something like "loading only") but there is not > a specific time limit. Others might object, however. (Probably on the > basis that this is not "parking", on which point they *are* technically > correct.) > > -- > Matthew > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 131, Issue 49 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
