I didn't check all those tags, but that's probably how it should be done indeed technically, as Lionel said. Drawing 4 parking spaces is much easier. And easier to understand for less experienced mappers. Which is also a good argument, IMHO. We don't want to create a database which is too difficult to understand for new mappers.On the other hand: if we just say that the wiki is not that good and everything can be interpreted loosely, where will we end up then? Regards, StijnRR
Op dinsdag 5 november 2019 11:13:57 CET schreef Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: so for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tyzRIji1MXSDUcxAxoxFoQ (the spot from the previous mail) parking:lane:both=marked parking:lane:left:type=on_kerb (*) parking:lane:right:type=half_on_kerb (*) parking:lane:right:capacity=2 parking:lane:left:capacity=2 parking:condition:both=free (*) perhaps left and right has to be switched here. Should I somehow tag the fact that only cars can park there (and no long vans as in the picture, nor trucks) ? On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and > using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication > for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these : > https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233 with Roeselare as a > somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing > parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed, > the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^ > > Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual > space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show > the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-) > > Kind Regards, > > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m= >> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking >> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in >> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end. >> >> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same? >> >> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema >> for such situations. >> >> m. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" >> > but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway >> > itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside >> > parking with the parking:lane tag on the street. >> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without >> > amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the >> > "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for >> > complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is >> > linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it >> > is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^ >> > >> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> >> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel >> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van >> >> parkeerterrein) is. >> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat >> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de >> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ? >> >> >> >> m. _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be