Overall - it seems that we reached some consensus here and there is no need for
proposal, although this thread got lengthy. Please let me know in next couple
of days if anyone thinks proposal would be better way.
Jan - I wanted to use "maxstay" as it is more common than "stay" today. But,
what
On 20.10.20 22:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys
On 20/10/2020 16.34, Branko Kokanovic wrote:
There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where
parking is free for customers, but only if you park for less than
some specified time amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity.
After that period, you have to pay[1]. It is w
Couple of other versions of restricted parking
Customer's only or else:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0752577,153.4231834,3a,41.8y,100.24h,86.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swWpsJAcwaHpNkJm8KuoXFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
& customers only with a time limit per day!
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0901
sent from a phone
> On 21. Oct 2020, at 10:59, stevea wrote:
> What I mean by towing_penalty=yes is that it is POSSIBLE that you might get
> towed if you exceed the maxstay (or a semantic otherwise
> interpretable-from-the-tags). What I mean by towing_penalty=no is that the
> particular "en
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> >
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>
> Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
>
> There is some more information available her
disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h
with * replace by left/right/both depending on side
Oct 21, 2020, 11:04 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico <> rob...@rtbk.com.a
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:10 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea
> wrote:
> > In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> > arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking
> > lots (large and small) is a sign that reads "you c
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico
> wrote:
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is
> > free.
> > There is some more information available here:
> >
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parkin
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea wrote:
> In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots
> (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours,
> but after that we have the right
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
>
> There is some more information available here:
>
>
> https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parkin
On Oct 21, 2020, at 1:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> towing_penalty=no means your car is towed away for free? In Nederland, towing
> always comes with a penalty, even if you don't want your car back.
>
> Maybe a tag for consequences should be introduced. I suggest or_else=cargone.
What I mean b
towing_penalty=no means your car is towed away for free? In Nederland, towing
always comes with a penalty, even if you don't want your car back.
Maybe a tag for consequences should be introduced. I suggest or_else=cargone.
Best, Peter Elderson
> Op 21 okt. 2020 om 10:32 heeft stevea het
> vol
Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
There is some more information available here:
https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
.
Regards, Rob
On We
In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always) arrangement
at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots (large and small) is
a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours, but after that we have
the right to tow your car away." (Sometimes punctuated with
I have the opposite conclusion about fee=yes/no.
These are free-to-use short-term car parks that have a clause to prevent
people from 'misusing' them for office parking, etc. I would expect a free
car park to be fee=no + a warning of charge after long stay.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 00:01 Andrew Harve
I agree these are very common arrangements.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
> understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
> covered by current state of tagging, no need for a p
I think that in this case full blown
proposal would be waste of time.
Whatever maxstay/time/whatever
keyword is used result should be fine.
We just need to document it
(add to examples list on
conditional restrictions page, maybe
also on fee page and parking page).
I would just wait for whatever
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values
as a note, I believe we
Hi all,
There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where parking
is free for customers, but only if you park for less than some specified time
amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity. After that period, you have
to pay[1]. It is widespread where I live, but I would
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 23:47, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 26. Aug 2019, at 13:54, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > Third problem is that although the ones my local supermarket recently
> installed have
> > signs (which,so far, are being completely ignored) saying they are only
> for charging,
>
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 08:53, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A bit messy, but how about
>> amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only
>>
>
> Big problem right there: you're expanding on the access tag. Some on this
> list will
> t
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2019, at 13:54, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Third problem is that although the ones my local supermarket recently
> installed have
> signs (which,so far, are being completely ignored) saying they are only for
> charging,
> in other places (particularly as charging st
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2019, at 00:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> A bit messy, but how about
> amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only
> car_charging=yes/no
> truck_charging=yes/no
> hgv_charging=yes/no
Is it really „parking“? Maybe we should introduce an amenity=cha
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 01:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> amenity=charging _space? Says what it is.
>
First problem is that goes against the design of amenity=parking_space.
Somebody
will then decide to have amenity=disabled_parking_space rather than use the
appropriate subtag with ame
amenity=charging _space? Says what it is.
On 26/08/19 08:52, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So it looks like, for the charging s
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>>
>> So it looks like, for the charging spaces, amenity=parking_space +
>> access:= is the way
>> to go.
>>
>
> A bit messy, but how about
> amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_cha
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> So it looks like, for the charging spaces, amenity=parking_space +
> access:= is the way
> to go.
>
A bit messy, but how about
amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only
car_charging=yes/no
truck_charging=yes/no
hgv_charging=yes/no
s
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 15:05, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> amenity=parking_spaces
> capacity=1 or 2 or 3
> access=customers
>
Nothing I've read states that only customers can use it, or that there is
any time limit imposed.
I think they're assuming that nobody is going to drive there just to charge
th
Here in Spain chargers like this are used by motor_vehicles but forget
about it, because before they have to be clients. I think this would be
best definition for access. But also I will use other key to specify they
have to be charging. You can find other places where charging would be not
compuls
My local supermarket recently added two car charging stations. Each
charging station took over three existing parking spaces. This is
apparently a nation-wide roll-out by the supermarket chain, so this
is going to apply to many places in the UK. It's also a likely
arrangement of other charging s
sent from a phone
> On 24. Mar 2018, at 13:19, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> I would avoid mapping the actual fee as that is very volatile.
as a data consumer you can always decide to treat any fee as “yes” or
potentially outdated (and you’ll loose nothing compared to “yes”), but you’ll
have a
On Sat, 2018-03-24 at 06:28 +, Jonathan wrote:
> Sorry I phrased my question poorly. Does anyone have an example on
> OSM of parking tagged with parking fees that vary over time? So I can
> see the tags used.
I think the tag you are looking for is fee:conditional, lots of usage
in Germany but
Not an expert, but I think you'll need a combination of tags:
- fee or fee:conditional to express fixed time intervals [1] [2]
- maxstay to express the maximum allowed stay within the fee period [3]
- charge to express the fee amount [4]
Querying with overpass-turbo for nodes combin
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Parking Fees
I just parked in the Triangle Parking for the UW Medical Center in Seattle, WA.
The first 30 minutes are free. They also have a flat rate after 5pm of $5.00
although it's not listed on their website.
https://www.uwmedicine.org/uw-medical-center/campus/direc
I just parked in the Triangle Parking for the UW Medical Center in Seattle,
WA. The first 30 minutes are free. They also have a flat rate after 5pm of
$5.00 although it's not listed on their website.
https://www.uwmedicine.org/uw-medical-center/campus/directions
There are a number of parking lots
Can anyone point me in the direction of a car park example with a parking fee
that is time dependant, such as first three hours free then next hour £2 ..
Thanks
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
How do parking meters fit in to the parking:condition tagging scheme?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
We already have something similar in
amenity=parking
hiking=yes
ski=yes
in order to indicate that a parking is mostly used for people who go
hiking and/or skiing.
I.e. not for parking of boots and skis...
In other words, if you use bicycle=yes it may not be obvious whether it is:
* a bi
We have:
amenity=parking (which assumes cars as vehicles)
amenity=motorcycle_parking
amenity=bicycle_parking
We are apparently lacking a proper tag for mixed bicycle and motorbicycle
parking.
What about
amenity=parking
motorcar=no
motorcycle=yes
bicycle=yes
?
__
Am Freitag, den 03.01.2014, 20:18 -0500 schrieb Richard Welty:
> On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> > Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north
> > side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
> that depends on what the direction of the way re
Oh, that makes so much more sense now! The left/right tags have always
confused me, but thanks for clarifying to someone who has been a mapper for
nearly 3 years.
-Compdude
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> >
> > I am confused about how
On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north
> side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
that depends on what the direction of the way representing Street X is
within OSM. which means that you can't make that
Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north side of
Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
Thanks.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> >
> > I am confused about how to apply a parking tag
On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
>
> I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the "west side."
> Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and
> parking:lane:left, I am not sure whether west should be considered
> left or right.
>
> I plan to work with a number of citizens from
Hi,
I want to add the following on-street parking data in Newton, Massachusetts:
Acacia Avenue - Prohibited, west side, Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the "west side."
Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and parkin
Am 03.05.2011 um 11:56 schrieb Stefan Bethke:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Car_access_tag
I've updated the draft with concrete verbiage to be added/changed on the access
and Map features pages.
Stefan
--
Stefan BethkeFon +49 151 14070811
Am 01.05.2011 um 15:13 schrieb Stefan Bethke:
> Am 01.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
>
>> Am 29.04.2011 22:18, schrieb Stefan Bethke:
>>> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this
>>> purpose. Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below
>>> motorcar=*?
Am 01.05.2011 15:13, schrieb Stefan Bethke:
Am 01.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
Am 29.04.2011 22:18, schrieb Stefan Bethke:
It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this
purpose. Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below
motorcar=*?
There is clear
Am 01.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
> Am 29.04.2011 22:18, schrieb Stefan Bethke:
>> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this
>> purpose. Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below
>> motorcar=*?
>>
>
> There is clearly a key needed for this class
2011/5/1 David Murn :
> On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 02:10 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> If I was towing a caravan, I wouldnt set my navigation device to think
> Im in a car or a motorbike, Id most probably use hgv.
this thread is not about hacking your system so that it does roughly
what you want, but
Am 29.04.2011 22:18, schrieb Stefan Bethke:
It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this
purpose. Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below
motorcar=*?
There is clearly a key needed for this class of vehicles, so why not
just use "car".
___
Am 01.05.2011 01:30, schrieb David Murn:
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:08 +0200, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
But don't forget bicycle=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes, skating=yes, dog=yes, ...
But is bicycle/horse/skate/dog parking allowed? This is a discussion of
how to tag limited access to parking, in w
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 02:10 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> hgv=no might or might not be understood to include busses, but it
> certainly would not imply cars with a trailer, or small caravans.
If I was towing a caravan, I wouldnt set my navigation device to think
Im in a car or a motorbike, Id mos
Am 01.05.2011 um 01:26 schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
> On 4/30/2011 6:56 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
>> My concrete problem is a parking lot that only cars are allowed to use, but
>> not trucks nor busses (technically, parking is allowed for two track
>> vehicles with no trailers, not exceeding a gross
Am 01.05.2011 um 01:27 schrieb David Murn:
> On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 00:56 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
>
>>> Maybe the alternative is to instead tag that its only suitable for
>>> single-tracked vehicles (ie. access=no motorbike=yes) rather than trying
>>> to figure out what isnt allowed? From ho
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:08 +0200, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> But don't forget bicycle=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes, skating=yes, dog=yes, ...
But is bicycle/horse/skate/dog parking allowed? This is a discussion of
how to tag limited access to parking, in which case you dont need to say
what IS allo
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 00:56 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> > Maybe the alternative is to instead tag that its only suitable for
> > single-tracked vehicles (ie. access=no motorbike=yes) rather than trying
> > to figure out what isnt allowed? From how I read the discussion that
> > seems to be the
On 4/30/2011 6:56 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
My concrete problem is a parking lot that only cars are allowed to use, but not trucks
nor busses (technically, parking is allowed for two track vehicles with no trailers, not
exceeding a gross mass of 3.5 tonnes). Reading the Key:access page, I did n
Am 30.04.2011 um 16:51 schrieb David Murn:
> On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 15:10 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
>> Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>>
>>> 2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke :
It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.
Should I use that, and a
2011/4/30 Stefan Bethke :
> And if you feel you need more classifications, here's a Wikipedia article on
> the EU classification:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG-Fahrzeugklasse (seems there's no English
> version)
There is no English version of this, and it seems to deal only with
trailers an
Am 30.04.2011 16:51, schrieb David Murn:
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 15:10 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke:
It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose. Should
I use that, and add an appropriate ent
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 15:10 +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>
> > 2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke :
> >> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.
> >> Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*?
> >
>
Am 30.04.2011 um 15:10 schrieb Stefan Bethke:
> Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>
>> 2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke :
>>> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.
>>> Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*?
>>
>>
>> -1
>> I
Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke :
>> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.
>> Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*?
>
>
> -1
> IMHO motorcar should be defined as automobile/car, and not
Am 30.04.2011 um 13:08 schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
> "motorcar" is supposed to represent the class of "Zeichen 251" (shows a car
> from the front), which forbids all double-tracked motor vehicles (which
> includes hgv and buses etc).
>
> "car" is supposed to represent the class of "Zusatzzeichen
Am 30.04.2011 um 12:10 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> I'd also like to point at "motor_vehicle" which doesn't seem to be
> defined reasonably (it includes all vehicles with a motor, like mofas
> and mopeds with 25 / 50 ccm motors).
All definitions we're talking about apply to highways and similar
2011/4/30 Sebastian Hohmann :
> Am 30.04.2011 12:10, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> "motorcar" is supposed to represent the class of "Zeichen 251" (shows a car
> from the front), which forbids all double-tracked motor vehicles (which
> includes hgv and buses etc).
this is how I see this as well.
Am 30.04.2011 12:10, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke:
It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose. Should
I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*?
-1
IMHO motorcar should be defined as automobile/car, and not be used as
a gen
2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke :
> It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.
> Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*?
-1
IMHO motorcar should be defined as automobile/car, and not be used as
a generic term including busses, hgv, goods and other.
Am 29.04.2011 um 22:18 schrieb Stefan Bethke:
> Trying to decypher the hierarchy of vehicles on the Key:access page, I cannot
> find a key that would allow me to tag a amenity=parking area as access=no,
> XXX=yes; where XXX would indicate access by regular cars as opposed to
> heavier or large
Trying to decypher the hierarchy of vehicles on the Key:access page, I cannot
find a key that would allow me to tag a amenity=parking area as access=no,
XXX=yes; where XXX would indicate access by regular cars as opposed to heavier
or larger vehicles like busses, trucks and the like.
It appears
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Anthony [2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
> > > Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> > > notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the
> gene
* Anthony [2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
> > Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> > notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general
> > idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visit
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Sounds like access=private, unless and until there's a more specific tag.
>
> Access=public? No, the public has no right of access.
> Access=permissive? No, the owner does not give *general* permission to
> access.
> Access=destination? No,
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
> Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general
> idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting the businesses
> serviced by the lot.
>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Seventy 7 wrote:
>> > Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
>> > use for years.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
>> "The owner gives general permission for access."
>>
>> This doesn't seem
2010/5/19 Greg Troxel :
> I would call the first access=destination and the second access=permissive.
yes, by thinking it over I also see some space for a restriction
between permissive and private and destination is more "elegant" cause
it uses an already introduced value for access.
cheers,
Ma
"Seventy 7" writes:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
>> "The owner gives general permission for access."
>>
>> This doesn't seem consistent with parking restricted to customers. Do
>> you think this is a problem? I think, if access=* is to mean something
> > Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
> > use for years.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
> "The owner gives general permission for access."
>
> This doesn't seem consistent with parking restricted to customers. Do
> y
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
> Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
> use for years.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says access=permissive means
"The owner gives general permission for access."
This doesn't seem consistent wit
> I was thinking access=destination although then you need to link the
> parking lot to the destination, although you probably would for
> access=customer as well since you might need to know where to spend
> money, or window shop, to be considered a customer.
I like this; access=destination defi
2010/5/18 Ulf Lamping :
> Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
> use for years.
+1
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 18 May 2010 17:23, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Use access=permissive instead of access=customer and you get what's in
> use for years.
I was thinking access=destination although then you need to link the
parking lot to the destination, although you probably would for
access=customer as well since you
Am 18.05.2010 09:13, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>> I propose to add the following to the Parking wiki page, in the table
>> of the "Tags" section, as follows:
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking)
>>
>> Column "Key": access
>> Column "Va
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> I propose to add the following to the Parking wiki page, in the table
> of the "Tags" section, as follows:
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking)
>
> Column "Key": access
> Column "Value": public/customer/private
> Column "Element": [
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> > From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
> > "The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> > (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> > in a business park) is handled with acces
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
> "The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> in a business park) is handled with access=* tags."
> To me, reading that directly that would seem to
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> 1. What should the "access" for these parking lots be? access=public
> would seem to be appropriate, but in some regards that's not entirely
> accurate. Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> notice that tow-away
I was using the OSM maps for my city on my Garmin recently and when I
listed the "parking" POIs I noticed a whole slew of parking showing up in
there; mainly "unnamed".. It got me thinking why those are in there but
then it dawned on me that in my area I've started adding in the parking
lots and
2010/5/16 Pieren :
> +1
> I submitted a ticket to revert this change :
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2970
> Mapnik cannot display all tags and all information in OSM. Showing all
> private things will result of an unreadable map.
It depends on the way the information is displayed. Of cou
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
>
> Now, there is a new, somewhat faded "P" symbol that is used for non-public
> parking. (both non-public parking areas/lots and points/nodes)
>
> I dislike this change, and wonder what the reasoning is behind the change.
>
>
+1
I submitted a
On 16 May 2010 13:05, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Anyway, fwiw, I completely disregard the "reasonable size" rule. It
> sort of makes sense for nodes (ie, don't make an "amenity=parking"
> node to represent only 6 spots), but not really for areas (the end
> user will clearly see that it's a tiny car pa
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Says that amenity=parking should only be used for parking lots, and
> not other less formal parking.
Specifically "A parking lot is an area reserved for parking cars,
trucks, motorcycles etc. Parking spaces along streets are currently
not
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Claudius Henrichs
> wrote:
> > Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
>
> > So you should rather go for getting the access tagging correctly by on
> > the ground surveying.
>
> I collect plenty of data fo
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
>> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>>
> Redefining an established tag won't work. How will you ensure that the
> remaining... hundreds of thousands of occurances of ameni
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
> Regarding rendering, two weeks ago, a change was made to the Mapnik
> rendering:
Yeah, I forgot to mention that, since the changeset I applied last
night was assuming the old rules.
- Serge
___
Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>
Redefining an established tag won't work. How will you ensure that the
remaining... hundreds of thousands of occurances of amenity=parking
comply to your new definition?
So you should rath
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
> This appeared to be caused by the lack of access tags, since the
> renderer assumes that in absence of an access tag, it renders as if
> access=public were set.
>
> The polygons we received were of all sorts of parking- lots, side
> par
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
