On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 10:35, Tom Brennan <webs...@ozultimate.com> wrote:
> > The parking aisle page on the wiki: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle > states one of the exclusions as: > "Forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the parking lot, connecting multiple > parking aisles – use highway=service without service=* instead. There > may be parking spaces on either side, but the roadway's primary purpose > is to get drivers to another part of the parking lot." > I'd disagree with the wiki there, & say that the perimeter road should be service=driveway So if you go by the wiki, the presence of parking spaces doesn't not > automatically make it a parking aisle. I'd say yes it does. But I certainly wouldn't split ways, and I'm fairly happy with the > tagging/presentation. Yep. You could probably also mount an argument to map > the circumference as highway=service without service=parking_aisle Appear to be parking bays directly off it so i'd call that parking These ones are all highway=service + service=parking_aisle. But I'm > happy again with the tagging/presentation. > You "could" split them into a driveway in / out, with the rest as parking, but not much point Here's one where most of the internal ways are parking aisle, but one > small section is not. This seems pointless to me. > Yes, pretty pointless but if you wanted to be pedantic, it's probably right. If you really wanted to, you could also make a short section of driveway up to the separate section of parking at 11 o'clock, & also for the curve linking that area back to the main park, but definitely no need to. And this one definitely should be inverted: > Yep! So I reckon the moral of this story is that if you think it makes sense to do it "this" way, then it probably does, & that's probably good enough! Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
