I think here it would better to use the primary name space of emergency,
similar to disused/abandoned, so that routers/data providers that don't
consider this tag won't lead people to park there.
On 28/10/2020 05:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Oct 28, 2020, 03:22 by andrew.harv...
"parking" should not be used for this, because in many cases these areas
have nothing in common with a parking lot. This meadow, for example, is
explicitly a rescue area, but definitely not a parking lot:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/503246160 (and I think, by the way,
that in case of an emerg
Better use the key "description" instead of "name". Apart from that in
my opinion you can do it like this.
More problematic is the access road (apparently not mapped by you): On
some sections it is drawn twice over the footways/path and "name" is
used here as well. As I already mentioned in a mail
sent from a phone
> On 28. Oct 2020, at 03:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Thanks, Supa - it's not a concept that I've ever heard of in Australia!
maybe you don’t signpost these? Every country has fire regulations for
buildings which include guaranteeing accessibility for fire fighters in ca
I that case amenity=parking would not fit.
I thought that "areas set aside for parking by emergency vehicles" would be
parking
with special restrictions (and some of them exist, for example hospitals or
healthcare
locations may have dedicated parking spaces or entire parking lots reserved for
e
access=no should be enough, if parking searcher is not handling
access=no/access=private
it is broken anyway
Oct 28, 2020, 09:19 by lrich...@posteo.de:
>
> I think here it would better to use the primary name space of emergency,
> similar to disused/abandoned, so that routers/data pr
Am Mi., 28. Okt. 2020 um 12:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> access=no should be enough, if parking searcher is not handling
> access=no/access=private
> it is broken anyway
>
these areas are usually not access=no, there will be no parking / stopping
s
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 12:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> these areas are usually not access=no, there will be no parking / stopping
> signs, but otherwise these are "normal" areas where other activities (like
> walking, playing with a ball, etc.) will take place. Think of it as part of
> the
Apologies for bringing dedicated reserved parking into the thread since
that is the only experience or interpretation I had. I think parking is a
worthwhile tag and I'd use emergency=parking for that, but let's get back
to your topic since it sounds more complex.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:34 PM Nü
On 10/28/20 8:28 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Apologies for bringing dedicated reserved parking into the thread since
> that is the only experience or interpretation I had. I think parking is
> a worthwhile tag and I'd use emergency=parking for that, but let's get
> back to your topic since it sound
sent from a phone
> On 28. Oct 2020, at 17:40, Rob Savoye wrote:
>
> I'm not 100% sure on the best tagging other than maybe parking=yes and
> access=emergency is appropriate
these really aren’t parking areas, nobody parks there, and you may not, they
are rather the opposite, no parking area
11 matches
Mail list logo
