On 23/7/20 6:42 am, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate
entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is
*only* the motorcycle spaces which could be amenity=motorcycle_parking.
Is this really the best way?
I am usually doing it like this (separate entities), it also seems most
useful for drivers / riders, because each group can see where are their
parking lots.
So... I'm not sure I agree with that. Maybe it's different in !US, but
in the US, motorcycles can (generally) park in any car parking space.
If we're going to use that argument, why do we have capacity:disabled,
or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling those spaces as separate lots?
You asked for 'better' without defining what better means to you.
To me it is 'better' to know where these things are (requires more work
by the mapper) rather than that they are somewhere inside some area
(requires less work by the mapper).
Disabled parking to me is 'better' mapped as a separate thing, as is
truck parking etc.
While a motorcycle may legal park where a car parking space is the same
cannot be said of a motorcycle parking space given the usual sized of
the things.
Tags may be available for those who cannot be bothered with the detail,
similar observations may be made for surface=paved vs surface=concrete etc.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
