Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> sense, it is more socially expected that you respect it.

I understand that, but if we are tagging what exists, then we should be able to 
describe it. People park cars _all the time_ in the big truck parking, so much 
so that they made little posters saying not to do it, a "manners" campaign for 
drivers. 

The posters made by the tollway company, of course, feature animals driving 
cars. The walrus is nice, the shark is bad. 

"Heartful ❤️ Highway" 
A 5MB PDF of all the posters. 
http://www.driveplaza.com/special/mannerty/report/pdfs/all.pdf 

But I do not think there is any legal reason you can't park there, but tagging 
separately helps people find where they should park. 

I am thinking of it more as an amenity - people looking for such parking would 
like to see it displayed - rather than trying to say you (legally/socially) 
can't park there. 


Javbw. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> Bicycle parking is different, its not an area

This is untrue. If you are thinking of the pipes or other lock points for 2-3 
bikes you see scattered around a place with a few recreational bikers,  yea. 
That is a point. 

But in places where there are several times more bicycles than cars, then 
bicycle parking is much more than a point. 

almost all bicycle parking I deal with (as I own and maintain 12 bikes here) 
are almost always represented by area because they are huge and dominate 
certain areas, especially near shops and stations. 

Outside of bicycle parking in very urban areas (where there are 2 level bike 
parking stands squashed up against apartment buildings) bicycle parking can be 
entire buildings.  And most stations offer bicycle parking whether it is a 
provided amenity of the station or an off-site private parking spot. And they 
are lots. Sometimes there are automated loops, sometimes old loops, but in more 
rural places, it is just a square painted on the ground (5mx10m and you park 
the bike there. There are also bicycle covers, schools and stations have 100 
linear meters of bike parking, none of which has any place to lock a bike to. 
My high school in the US had a 10mx10m bike parking area. My HS I work at has a 
2 story, steel building just for students to park 400 bicycles. My middle 
school has 50m of bike covers. All of them offer no "loops" locks, etc. 

So almost all city bikes have ring locks that mount on the frame and lock 
through the rear tire with a key. Most schools, shops, and other places do not 
provide anything to anchor a bike to, besides the 1-2 bikes near a fence or 
near a support pole for the roof. 

I will link to a few points in google maps, but as I am on my phone, please 
enter street view to see what I am talking about. 

Dedicated urban bicycle parking with auto-locks  
https://goo.gl/maps/Rzecq8tTfDm 20mx15m in front of a mall. 

2 story building (White with glass windows) that is 100% bicycle parking. 
https://goo.gl/maps/HhjpnGr1Bbv

Surface parking near a station
"Maebashiekimuryo Bicycle Parking"
https://goo.gl/maps/T82kvVM2aX72

Linear covered parking along a road. Note there is nothing to lock to. 100 
bikes cram in there on the weekdays. 
https://goo.gl/maps/sKcFszPrSLq

A high school's 2-story bicycle-only parking only building. The only access to 
the second frloor is a ramp with stairs. This is not converted car parking, it 
is purpose built, like many other multi-story bicycle parking structures often 
found under railway viaducts. https://goo.gl/maps/aeYXpqYQwJ92
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=spaceport , aeroway=launchpad

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Hi Frederik,

I think the main difference is
that spaceports already exist (and are "on the ground") :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_launch_sites

In case of the skyhook I'm not so surprised of the denial,
given the culture of denial without constructive criticism
which isn't controlled a.t.m. by an appropriate social rule.
Will IMHO get worse the more people participate,
imagine all facebook-users commenting proposals...

What do you think about aeroway=spaceport ?
I'm not a specialist in spaceport infrastructure,
but I'd generally like to be able to filter for them in OSM,
which isn't possible if they are tagged as
"amenity=space_centre/spaceport/cosmodrome/..."
See the examples mentioned here :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Aeroways#aeroway.3Dspaceport

For further details I could imagine using
aeroway=launchpad
(similar to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dhelipad)

The rest of the buildings should IMHO be similar to an airport,
or standard tags may be used :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbunker

Cheers,
Thilo

Am 28.04.2017 um 20:45 schrieb Thilo Haug OSM:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm astonished there isn't a description for spaceports yet,
> therefore the tagging differs widely :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Aeroways#aeroway.3Dspaceport
>
> - Proposals / Opinions ?
>
> IMHO amenity doesn't fit well,
> as it's just another kind of airport.
>
> Cheers,
> Thilo
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=spaceport

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 28.04.2017 20:45, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
> I'm astonished there isn't a description for spaceports yet,

I think everyone interested in spacefaring must have turned away from
the wiki when the amenity=skyhook proposal was rejected in 2008 by
people without the slightest bit of vision:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Skyhook

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] aeroway=spaceport

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Hi all,

I'm astonished there isn't a description for spaceports yet,
therefore the tagging differs widely :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Aeroways#aeroway.3Dspaceport

- Proposals / Opinions ?

IMHO amenity doesn't fit well,
as it's just another kind of airport.

Cheers,
Thilo



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-28 14:57 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> Access:pregnant=yes



actually the signs are not strictly prescriptive, it is more a kind request
you should keep the space free for them, but you won't be fined if you
didn't. It is not access in a strict sense, it is more socially expected
that you respect it.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Link roads : the Michelin style

[yo paseopor]

If you are thinking in the real quality of the link you will see link
refers the most cases in the higher investment road, so in a real quality
aproach links are refered to the major road.

Salut i mapes
yopaseopor


Libre
de virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> Bicycle parking is different, its not an area its a thing to chain your
> bike to.

I would not call
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radstation.jpg a thing to
chain your bike to. It's an area imho

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 21:57 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> I wish the parking lot tagging page took more of these issues into
> account when discussing how to tag them. HGV (trucks?), bus, and
> motorhome might need their own seperate parking amenity tags - having
> them spring from car parking via access seems really weird when cars
> are not allowed to use it. 
> 
No sure I understand this comment, we tag amenity=parking, not
amenity=car_park. Nothing in the basic tag says cars.

Bicycle parking is different, its not an area its a thing to chain your
bike to.

Phil (trigpoint)



> It's like tagging:
> 
> amenity=foo 
> foo=no
> Bar=yes. 
> 
> It should just be amenity=bar... 
> 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > l.com> wrote:
> > 
> > and for pregnant women (typically close to kindergartens)
> 
> Falls into the common - old-hurt-disabled-pregnant category (which is
> informal, compared to the legally defined handicapped person). Is
> there any "person" or "access" type for that group or those
> individuals beyond disabled/gender? 
> 
> Access:pregnant=yes
> Access:elderly=yes
> Access:assisting=yes (small kid or helping blind person) 
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting thing to come out all of this is that while we break
> down parking by vehicle types, we don't break it down for all
> vehicles.
> And while disabled parking is an almost universal feature, it is not
> "baked in" to the parking tagging methods. 
> 
> After the legally defined "disabled/handicapped" separation - then
> you get into all kinds of title/status ones (injured, pregnant,
> assisting) old people (with the clover mark symbol here), all
> centered around some kind of physical issue, 
> 
> And then women only (like certain trains in Japan or the
> aforementioned parking spots) for safety. There might also be
> different entrances for women in the Middle East based on cultural
> issues.
> 
> Trying to separate vehicle, handicap, and status into something
> coherent to tag is a giant hairball. 
> 
> 
> Javbw. 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Marc Gemis]

I thought that did not matter. I just wish I could find an official
text. I only find fora where people say that it is not legal.
Sometimes its not possible, because the spaces are large enough for a
mobilhome, but too short for a car + caravan.

m

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> 2017-04-28 10:33 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
>>
>> Sorry, I think that in some countries you are allowed to camp with a
>> motorhome on some rest areas, but not with caravans. So you can have
>> camping:motorhome=yes and camping:caravan=no.
>
>
>
> is there a difference when the caravan remains attached to a vehicle (car)?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[John Willis]

I wish the parking lot tagging page took more of these issues into account when 
discussing how to tag them. HGV (trucks?), bus, and motorhome might need their 
own seperate parking amenity tags - having them spring from car parking via 
access seems really weird when cars are not allowed to use it. 

It's like tagging:

amenity=foo 
foo=no
Bar=yes. 

It should just be amenity=bar... 



Javbw
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> and for pregnant women (typically close to kindergartens)

Falls into the common - old-hurt-disabled-pregnant category (which is informal, 
compared to the legally defined handicapped person). Is there any "person" or 
"access" type for that group or those individuals beyond disabled/gender? 

Access:pregnant=yes
Access:elderly=yes
Access:assisting=yes (small kid or helping blind person) 



The interesting thing to come out all of this is that while we break down 
parking by vehicle types, we don't break it down for all vehicles.
And while disabled parking is an almost universal feature, it is not "baked in" 
to the parking tagging methods. 

After the legally defined "disabled/handicapped" separation - then you get into 
all kinds of title/status ones (injured, pregnant, assisting) old people (with 
the clover mark symbol here), all centered around some kind of physical issue, 

And then women only (like certain trains in Japan or the aforementioned parking 
spots) for safety. There might also be different entrances for women in the 
Middle East based on cultural issues.

Trying to separate vehicle, handicap, and status into something coherent to tag 
is a giant hairball. 


Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-28 10:33 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> Sorry, I think that in some countries you are allowed to camp with a
> motorhome on some rest areas, but not with caravans. So you can have
> camping:motorhome=yes and camping:caravan=no.
>


is there a difference when the caravan remains attached to a vehicle (car)?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Apr 2017, at 10:36, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> reserved placed for cars driven by women. Typically in underground parkings.


and for pregnant women (typically close to kindergartens)

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Warin]

On 28-Apr-17 08:33 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, don't know of this. Can you give an example country/place?
Trying to find a best fix to 'my' tagging problem.
Self centred I know, but there are many 'distractions' with OSM mapping
leading in all sorts of directions.
If that is the case then the camping:x=yes/no may possibly be the 'best'
solution?

There are certainly places marked with signs like the ones on
http://www.camperstops.eu/camperborden.php
You find them in Belgium and The Netherlands. I think also in Gemany.
I cannot find a official document right away that explains that it is
forbidden for caravans. There are some fora (in Dutch) where people
say this. This corresponds to what I had heard in the past. I can keep
looking for them if you want.

The tagging with camping:x is probably the best, yes.

m

p.s. you might find some information in Dutch on the rules that
campsite and campersite owners have to fulfil on
http://www.toerismevlaanderen.be/vlaamse-logiesdecreet The camper site
parkings are considered something different.

_


Not a caravan nor campervan/motorhome person myself (yet) so I have not paid 
much attention to these features.

That will keep me busy for some time :) thanks!


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, don't know of this. Can you give an example country/place?
> Trying to find a best fix to 'my' tagging problem.
> Self centred I know, but there are many 'distractions' with OSM mapping
> leading in all sorts of directions.
> If that is the case then the camping:x=yes/no may possibly be the 'best'
> solution?

There are certainly places marked with signs like the ones on
http://www.camperstops.eu/camperborden.php
You find them in Belgium and The Netherlands. I think also in Gemany.
I cannot find a official document right away that explains that it is
forbidden for caravans. There are some fora (in Dutch) where people
say this. This corresponds to what I had heard in the past. I can keep
looking for them if you want.

The tagging with camping:x is probably the best, yes.

m

p.s. you might find some information in Dutch on the rules that
campsite and campersite owners have to fulfil on
http://www.toerismevlaanderen.be/vlaamse-logiesdecreet The camper site
parkings are considered something different.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Warin]

On 28-Apr-17 06:33 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27-Apr-17 01:43 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

do we need the same tags for motorhomes ?


Off topic. They get a mention on the  caravan_site wiki page. I think they
are represented by caravan at this time.


Sorry, I think that in some countries you are allowed to camp with a
motorhome on some rest areas, but not with caravans. So you can have
camping:motorhome=yes and camping:caravan=no.


Sorry, don't know of this. Can you give an example country/place?
Trying to find a best fix to 'my' tagging problem.
Self centred I know, but there are many 'distractions' with OSM mapping leading 
in all sorts of directions.
If that is the case then the camping:x=yes/no may possibly be the 'best' 
solution?

Apparently Walmart in the USA allow 'camping' in some of their stores' car 
parks. So this may have application to amenity=parking too.


Motorhome camping is different from caravan camping is different from
tent camping. I thought you were trying to extend rest area tagging
for all kinds of camping.


Not aware of them being that dissimilar.
Both can incorporate a store of water, a store for waste water, a shower, a 
toilet, an independent electrical supply and etc.

Some motorhomes have a secondary car towed behind them - so they can have a 
carvanesk application of park/camp and use the car to get to sights/supermarket 
thing too.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:43 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> When tagging a large facility I need:
>
> - car(understood)

reserved placed for cars driven by women. Typically in underground parkings.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-28 9:44 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

>
> The disadvantage is that it lacks the where these things are in the larger
> parking area.
> Unless you map each as a separate area.



there is the tag amenity=parking_space which can be used for parking spaces
inside a bigger amenity=parking area:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27-Apr-17 01:43 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>
>> do we need the same tags for motorhomes ?
>
>
> Off topic. They get a mention on the  caravan_site wiki page. I think they
> are represented by caravan at this time.
>

Sorry, I think that in some countries you are allowed to camp with a
motorhome on some rest areas, but not with caravans. So you can have
camping:motorhome=yes and camping:caravan=no.
Motorhome camping is different from caravan camping is different from
tent camping. I thought you were trying to extend rest area tagging
for all kinds of camping.

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Warin]

On 28-Apr-17 09:46 AM, Warin wrote:

On 27-Apr-17 01:43 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

do we need the same tags for motorhomes ?


Off topic. They get a mention on the  caravan_site wiki page. I think 
they are represented by caravan at this time.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site



I recently start seeing rest areas where you have to pay to stay
overnight, so should we add "fee" to your yes/no choices ?


Off topic. Something like fee:conditional=yes @(sunset-sunrise); no 
@(sunrise-sunset) ?




m.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have come up with some detail tagging for rest areas but want to 
get some

oversight on it and help with one aspect.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area

Easy(?) Details

Some of these have time limits - easy enough to use a conditional 
max stay

tag

  rest_area:condition:maxstay=20

Stops people 'camping' over a long period.

Restricted to HGV use only, use access tags

  access=no with hgv=yes

More difficult detail

One I am having problems with, where they can be used for 'camping' 
with a

caravan/camper-van (but probably not a tent).

rest_area:camping=caravan

or

rest_area:camping:caravan=yes

would convey the meaning .. but is it a 'good' tag that would allow for
other things and follow other tagging methods?

caravan=yes could simply mean access and not convey the camping 
aspect? Note

the max stay would still apply (if there).


Any thoughts on tagging these features for rest areas?


On 27-Apr-17 11:18 AM, André Pirard wrote:


Hi,


 Your questions show that there is no OSM formal definition of the
 usage of name space.

 I once sketched one, a key of which is rules to make a canonical
 representation of the tags.

 It says that for the main tag (the one representing the object (vs
 attributes))

 highway=rest_area canonically means highway:rest_area=yes

 and that attribute tags append to that.

 So, your examples become

 highway:rest_area:rest_area:camping=caravan

 which in its canonical form is
 highway:rest_area:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes

 obviously, one rest_area is too much and it must be:

 camping=caravan ==> highway:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes

 camping:caravan=yes ==> highway:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes

 same canonical representation but allowing other attributes of
 camping than caravan.

 camping=yes (attribute of rest_area) would mean that camping is
 allowed

 caravan=yes (attribute of rest_area) would mean that the area 
can be

 used by caravans

 (but an access=* would be the normal way to do it)

 camping=caravan=yes would mean that the caravans can be used for
 camping


 I hope I made no mistake.


Ok .. so

camping:caravan=yes would be ok.

A wrinkle is the caravan_site key/value

I think this could be used in place of the camping:caravan=yes

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site

However it is a key/value itself and that could confuse renders as to 
what is the primary key/value.


so

highway=rest_area

caravan_site=yes

could be a better way to go?


Some American stores allow camping in their parking areas ... how is 
that tagged?





 Well, it's risky writing this.

 Someone may come down on me again to scold me and say : "we" do not
 do that.

 Very logically not saying who is "we".

 That's apparently not you.


I try to say things about things rather than people. People have all 
sorts of ideas .. which is what I'm after.


But if 'we' start talking about people they can get upset with 'us' .. 
and that is not what anyone is after here.





 BTW, a rest_area can be just some space beside a road.

 It is not a parking but it can be used to momentarily stop out of
 the traffic.

 Right?


Correct .. but I would put it this way, in a very simplistic way;

Parking is when you stop (park) to leave your vehicle and do something 
else - shopping, work, play.


A 'rest area' is where you stop (park) to do nothing (rest).





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 28.04.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Warin:


The disadvantage is that it lacks the where these things are in the 
larger parking area.

Unless you map each as a separate area.
That you have to do anyhow if you want to make any distinction. Unless 
you just tag different capacities.


Tobi

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Warin]

On 28-Apr-17 04:44 PM, Tobias Wrede wrote:

Am 28.04.2017 um 02:04 schrieb Warin:

On 28-Apr-17 09:43 AM, John Willis wrote:

When tagging a large facility I need:

- car(understood)


 - car with trailer (usual in home renovation/building centres)

car with caravan



-bus
-"large" (truck/tanker/semi,etc)
-motorbike (understood)
-disabled car only
-disabled bus only
-bicycle (understood)


Truck only, bus only, large only, car with/without trailer only etc. 
could mostly be denoted by using the appropriate access tags. That has 
a couple of drawback, though:

a) it breaks with already having motorcycle_parking and bicycle_parking
b) it makes it more difficult to interpret by renderers  (though not 
impossible)


As an advantage it's easy to have a parking lot for both buses and 
trucks vs buses only. Just add the appropriate access tags and do not 
worry about which amenity=? to use.


Tobi


The disadvantage is that it lacks the where these things are in the 
larger parking area.

Unless you map each as a separate area.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 28.04.2017 um 02:04 schrieb Warin:

On 28-Apr-17 09:43 AM, John Willis wrote:

When tagging a large facility I need:

- car(understood)


 - car with trailer (usual in home renovation/building centres)


-bus
-"large" (truck/tanker/semi,etc)
-motorbike (understood)
-disabled car only
-disabled bus only
-bicycle (understood)


Truck only, bus only, large only, car with/without trailer only etc. 
could mostly be denoted by using the appropriate access tags. That has a 
couple of drawback, though:

a) it breaks with already having motorcycle_parking and bicycle_parking
b) it makes it more difficult to interpret by renderers  (though not 
impossible)


As an advantage it's easy to have a parking lot for both buses and 
trucks vs buses only. Just add the appropriate access tags and do not 
worry about which amenity=? to use.


Tobi

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging