On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Cartinus <carti...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I don't know where this nonsense comes from, but I don't have time to fix > the > wiki tonight. I remember that when I had just joined OSM (late '07) there > was > made some change to how either osm2pgsql or the mapnik stylesheet worked. > This was specifically done to be able to map non-public carparks. The > result > of it was that only carparks without an access tag or with access=public > get > a blue "P". > > Yeah, that rule doesn't make sense to me, as "access=permissive" should get the P. How about this: parking=public (or no parking tag), presumably anyone can park here, perhaps at a small fee. parking=commercial: anyone can park here, it's a business. parking=customer: anyone using the services of an associated organisation can park. May require payment. parking=authorised: you can park here only if authorised: staff member, member of club, etc. Basically, you would need a prior arrangement. I think the goal is to give broadly useful information rather than to map all the subtle nuances. If I was driving somewhere and looking for a park, I would first want to know about "parking=customer" locations, failing that, "parking=public", failing that, "parking=commercial". It might even be helpful to know about "parking=authorised" places, shown as a P with a cross through or something, to know *not* to try and park there. I wonder if there be some kind of "parking=private" for things like parking spaces near apartment buildings, or spots inside company grounds, but there may not be enough distinction against "authorised". One question though: is this really the best use of the "parking=" tag? How would you add information like motorcycle vs car parking, underground/covered/openair, secure/nonsecure... Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
