2011/3/18 Flaimo <fla...@gmail.com>: > just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation > also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps > underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i > have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and that > is the problem. underground parking facilities often have more than > one entrance. right now, each entrance is interpreted as its own > parking lot. the relation would group them together to one parking > facility.
Yes, it can be a possibility (and indeed to group nodes a relation different then multipolygons is needed), but I'd consider this not the better approach, as a simple area will be more useful then a relation with some nodes (and easier to map as it would be "mapping as usual" instead of "exception"/new relation type). Reasons that the area currently is not used a lot this might be: - the exact size and position are not known to the mapper (I'd suggest to map it approximately, still better then nodes) - the renderers currently don't support underground buildings in a nice way (will maybe change in the future), maybe even render them not distinguishable from surface buildings (which is discouraging). - documentation in the wiki suggests that a node is sufficient, or is not very specific. (could be changed) Btw.: you wrote that "nobody" mapped underground parkings as area with a layer=-1 but I found that people indeed do it. I found 90 nodes with parking='underground' (of which 4 with layer=-1) in my extract versus 40 polygons (of which 15 had layer=-1), so almost one third of the underground parkings in my region are indeed mapped as areas. This is opposite to all amenity=parking (8000 nodes vs 16000 polygons) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
