> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:53:01 +0100 > From: Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux) > Message-ID: <4d83479d.5090...@tobias-knerr.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I do not see a good reason to use amenity=parking on the individual > parking spaces within a larger parking area. Instead, I would prefer to > keep using amenity=parking a closed way that covers the entire parking > area and contains the individual parking spaces. I would then use a > different tag for individual parking spaces (parking_lot=yes if there > are no better ideas). Besides of requiring one tag less per feature, it > would not contradict current usage of amenity=parking, and would make it > a bit easier for renderers that want to ignore individual parking spaces > (which is a sensible cartographic decision for many use cases).
my original version used new tags for all three elements, but a user in the comments suggested to explicitly use amenity=parking for compatibility reasons and to slowly force renderers to adapt this mapping scheme. > I also suggest to allow nodes for parking spaces. Areas are the obvious > choice *if* you use high-res satellite imagery. But without imagery, it > still makes sense to map individual parking spaces for special interest > groups from surveyed information. This is where a node is the > appropriate solution until more detailed data becomes available. > Accepting both nodes and areas to accommodate different detail levels of > data is good practice for other features, e.g. those in the shop and > amenity categories. good argument. i changed the proposal accordingly. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
