On 24-10-2020 16:22, Janko Mihelić wrote: > These two variants are mapping for the renderer, and both add false > data. The first one extends the parking over half the road. The second > creates a service road area over half the road. There is no service road > area there, you are just trying to connect the parking to the road so it > looks nice on the map. And it does look nice, but it's false data.
Agreed. There may be a handful of cases where a router won't route you to a spot on the road right next to an explicitly mapped parking=street_side area mapped the way shown in our proposal, but I don't think that is a very common use case; you normally wouldn't target a specific street-side parking area. If I want to visit a friend or a small shop in an area without dedicated parking lost/garages, I would look around on the map to orient myself, and probably set the destination to the address I am going, or somewhere along a road from whereon I would go look for a free spot using the map to show me streets where I can park. With a large parking garage you definitely would select that as the destination if you are using a router, but that is a different kind of beast. > Street side parking is a very different parking area from a big enclosed > surface parking. Some people may find it hard to park there because you > back up onto traffic, and they may want to avoid parking there. This > information is definitely very useful. Exactly. Our proposal should benefit other types of amenity=parking such as parking=surface (etc.) by giving routers and renderers a way to ignore and de-emphasize, respectively, street-side parking. It also benefits data consumers (including routers) when asking for a list of parking facilities nearby: street-side parking can be properly classified and described as such, and potentially shown lower in the list below any public parking lots/garages. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
