I would consider what is here described as access aisle (according to the photo [1]) part of the parking space. Here in Italy any parking space for the disabled has a dedicated "access aisle" similar to the photo. If you want to achieve disabled (wheelchair) routing I would assume it to be sufficient to map the disabled parking spaces within the car park.
[1] https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/F2mAATCQ54SzfcT On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 11:31, Tony Shield <tony.shield...@gmail.com> wrote: > Having today downloaded and read SN01360 [2] |I disagree with the > interpretation. In that document there is only one mention of 'aisle' it > being an 'access aisle' in Section 5.4 paragraph marked Off-Street Parking > -" *Off-street parking*: bays should be a minimum of 4800 mm long > by 2400 mm wide with additional space: (1) where bays are > parallel to the access aisle and access is available from the side an > extra length of at least 180 0mm, or (2) where bays are > perpendicular to the access aisle, an additional width of at least > 1200 mm along each side. > I read that as saying the 'access aisle' is that which in OSM is marked as > 'parking _aisle', and it leads to a parking bay designated for disabled > users, the 'access aisle' is not exclusively for the use of disabled users. > I am of the opinion that 'access' is misinterpreted to refer only to > disabled users which is a very restrictive interpretation of the usual > interpretation of access being for anybody. I think it is something to be > very careful about. > Usage in the UK supports my interpretation - I know of many car parks > where ordinary and disabled spaces are next to each other and accessed by a > single way which has no restrictions. > > For parking bays I think that the tag:amenity=parking _space is clear. > > Regards > TonyS999 > > On 02/05/2019 08:21, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: > > Hi Clifford, > On 02/05/19 00:13, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Since the off loading area is called an access aisle, both in the US and > UK [2], it seem to me that it would be an appropriate term to use. Would > using highway=footway + footway=access_aisle + wheelchair=yes be a more > acceptable tagging scheme? My concern is that just adding wheelchair=yes to > a footway doesn't get at the requirement for the width of the > access_aisle. > > > [1] > https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards/chapter-5-parking > [2] > https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01360/SN01360.pdf > > I'm really supporting your proposal for a highway=footway + > footway=access_aisle. > > I would match this with a wheelchair=designated instead of a > wheelchair=yes, as suggested by Mateusz Konieczny. > > Best, > > Ale > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
