I doubt it is useful to use a type=site relation with parking_space features at all. But your proposed rewording would be an improvement.
Joseph On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:00 AM Alessandro Sarretta < alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear tagging list, > > looking on how to use the tag amenity=parking_space ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space) I've > always found the requirement that "parking spaces always have to be grouped > together in a site relation tagged with type=site + site=parking" too > complex and not really required by a general use case. > > I can think about areas with maybe 10 amenity=parking_spaces and a > surrounding amenity=parking, where I don't see any strong need to specify a > relation to group the parking spaces together. Here an example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658526498 > > Searching for a reason for this requirement, I haven't found here ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=629318) a specific one. > > Looking here (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site), > the reason to use the relation seems to be quite lighter: "Parking sites - > useful for cases where parking entrances are mapped but parking area is not > yet mapped. Once parking is mapped as an area with service roads marked > site relation is no longer useful and may be safely deleted." > > Should we maybe rephrase the sentence "Parking spaces *always have to* be > grouped together in a site relation tagged with type=site + site=parking." > in something like "Parking spaces *can* be grouped together in a site > relation tagged with type=site + site=parking."? > > Thank you for any comment, > > Ale > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
