Parking
 |
This page is being considered for cleanup. Please discuss this page. |  |
 Feature page: Parking
|
|
| Description |
| Discussing car parks and places to park bicycles and other vehicles. |
| Tags |
- For the tag, see Tag:amenity=parking
Currently car parks can be both areas and nodes. It used to be that renderers only coloured an area, and put a sign on a node. New renders put a sign in the center of an area as well. Unfortunately, this means lots of areas now have 2 signs. How should we fix this?
Contents |
Options
1. Delete the nodes inside areas, make sure the areas are set access=yes/private/etc... and any tagging (e.g. car park name) is copied across.
2. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in and do nothing else.
3. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in and change the tagging of the node to amenity:deprecated=parking
4. Add a FIXME-note explaining the problem to the local mapper (who's not reading talk) and leave the choice to him.
5. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in and add a FIXME-note explaining the problem to the node
Discussion
This discussion should be made on the basis of ANY node/area conflict. Car Parks are just another example of an inherent problem in the way POI type data is loaded Lsces 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Option 4 doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is that osmarender maps look bad. I wouldn't want to do this without also adding a relationship, which makes it a variant of option 3. --Rjmunro 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the principle of 1 is OK, but rather than delete, I'd change the tag e.g. to amenity:redundant=parking, so no information is actually lost, just in case. Such nodes could always actually be deleted later. David.earl 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Lsces above: sometimes the node is telling you something different than the area. For example, school grounds may be extensive areas, but the actual building or entrance more constrained, and certainly not randomly placed in the middle of the area. David.earl 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- If a node is giving different data to an area then they have to be different POI's and we live with the duplicate entries in any search results. But I think that the GENERAL rule of ONE reference to a particular POI that is being proposed in the overall guide lines is the most logical. If you want several references to POI, then there must be an 'area' that wraps all of them and provides the unique reference for them. With each node then providing additional secondary data which is ignored when the area is processed. The problem is processing that information without having to carry out complex mapping operations on variable data Lsces 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In 1, access = public (unless already set differently). Also, where a node has been positioned carefully, deleting it & adding a computer generated 'centre' could / will lose data eg I often mark the ticket machine or near the entrance with the node. --DrMark 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Vote
Instructions
Please list your preferred options in order of preference, and sign. Don't just say one thing. I'll use single transferable vote to work out the winner.
Add more options above if none already describe what you want. Don't change the numbering or you'll mess up everyone else's votes. Please don't put comments in your vote, or vote like this "1 but change this bit and that bit and blah blah". If your option isn't listed add it. Put the option you base yours on as your second choice.
- 1,3,2,4 --Rjmunro 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4 -- Fröstel 14:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1 -- Thewanderer 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1 -- BUT SEE Discussion section -- This should be applied generally Lsces 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1 -- but don't actually delete, just suppress (for now, by changing the tags). I strongly disagree with doing this generally and will get very upset if that happens as it will lose my carefully collected information - see discussion. David.earl 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4 -- Do not delete other people's hard-won data, let them fix it. Deleting other people's work is the beginning of an edit war. Chillly 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1,4,2 -- Bobkare 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1,4,2 -- 1) Does not delete any data - it's transferred to the area where appropriate, 4) We should let others know of the 'policy' change, 2) relationship will probably be like the discussed 'renderer hint', I dont like 3 since it breaks the don't play to the renderers 'rule', even though this is a fix for that very issue! --Edgemaster 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 2 3 5 4 1 -- I think this is worth doing, provided it is used to keep private parking private as well & doesn't upset all the owners of areas that aren't. --DrMark 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1,4,3 --Colin Marquardt 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4, 1. Smsm1 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1, 3 --Bass 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4 -- Alv 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
