Discuss the Parking page here:
node/area conflict 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)
- Absolutely. This discussion and vote applies to all kinds of stuff. It's a general mapping principle, and now it has been enshrined as a widely accepted good practice mapping principle called One feature, one OSM element applying to the way we treat nodes and areas in general. This discussion and vote was always too specific, and is not outdated and irreverent. I will now blow away the whole lot of it, and replace with information about parking. -- Harry Wood 14:43, 19 June 2012 (BST)
Move from 'Car Park' to 'Parking'
In the spirit of feature pages I have moved this article to allow for a wider discussion of parking of any vehicle or device (including bicycles). PeterIto 10:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- We now need to turn this into a feature page. Currently it isn't. It's a mess. But I'm about to clean it up (see below)
- -- Harry Wood 14:43, 19 June 2012 (BST)
This page should describe all kind of parking facilities like parking areas, parking on streets, parkinghouses. It should also cover parking of bicycles and other types of vehicles. Old discussion currently on it should be moved either to a discussion page or to a separate page. User:RM87 11:53, 6 April 2012
- Yes the page currently carries a discussion and vote about node/area problem which is (as mentioned above) outdated and irrelevant. I'll blow it away and...
- For the moment I'll just link to some tags (mainly amenity=parking) for the moment. But we can flesh this out with more "feature page" description.
- -- Harry Wood 14:43, 19 June 2012 (BST)
How to map parking
I noticed no real direction on how to map parking, and I think it needs to be covered. I'm all for the way google has you map it, the parking lot goes all the way out to the road, of there is one. for example, a square parking lot on the corner of two roads: It's borders would go all the way out to the two roads the border it, but only go out to the borders of the lot itself on the other two sides. I a defenition like this would make the map more consistent and easy to use for outsiders (non mappers). ) P.S. do I have to do the 4 ~'s thing? Northern Pyro (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The above doesn't make much sense to me. A parking area usually has a boundary of some sort -- maybe a fence. The area outside the fence is not part of the parking area. If we extend the parking area to the road, then it implies cars can also park on the pavement -- but that is usually not the case. On OSM we typically try to map things in more detail than google -- which means aiming to be more precise. Falsely extending a boundary to the road reduces precision unnecessarily. Its not the way OSM has done it, in any area I've looked at. We should continue to do things more intelligently and not copy google on this. User:harg 13:27, 01 February 2016 (UTC)
Needs more explaination on how to map a surface parking lot. Does the entire area of aspalt get included? Only the places with parking spaces? For a single vehicle that passes between the shops and the parking spaces, is that service=parking_aisle or just highway=service? More details and illustrations, please! Mtc (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Types of car park
It would greatly help if editors could be more particular about adding access tags. Currently a visitor cannot rely on being able to use a car park that appears on the map because it may turn out to belong to a nearby building and then may or may not be available even to visitors. In all cases, using access=public, access=destination or access=private would help. Maybe we should also have additional tags such as visitors=yes/no staff=yes/no. Where it it is not obvious, a tag destination=Somesuch House tag could indicate the allowed destination of those who the car park.
Strongly agreed. An access tag should be a compulsory addition to amenity=parking. But currently it makes no difference to the renderer, unless the area also has service=parking_aisle and that has an access=private tag. Even then, the distinction is only visible at zoom 18 or 19. I'm not sure where we discuss the renderer, but a clear distinction between public and private areas at all zooms where the area is visible would tend to encourage proper mapping. User:harg 13:27, 01 February 2016 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. Without an access=destination tag, the parking area appears to be public parking, when in fact shops will tow and empound your vehicle if it is not there for the purpose of shopping. It would be better not to know about such a parking area, at all. This is super important information for a vehicle map. You use openstreetmap to drive, but eventually you need to stop and park. OSM does the user a disservice by pointing to every paved area as permissible parking. Mtc (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I have finished changing all my local parking lots to include access=customers (for retail areas) and access=private (for business areas). The destination key - mentioned above - is not recommended. Further, I changed all public parking areas with access=yes , and I included fee=yes for non-free public parking. I feel this presents useful information to people looking to park their car, and it also renders private parking with a much lighter shade. Makes me feel better about being surrounded by parking areas, on the map. --Mtc (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Parking Tollbooth - Request
I have seen many parking areas that have a building at the entry that contains a person collecting fees. I have not found a good way to map these structures, and I have been entering them as tourist=information which is clearly not their purpose. They function like tollbooths, except this wiki defines barrier=toll_booth as a device for limiting road access. I believe parking areas should have something defined, as this tollbooth feature is important as a landmark and as a resource for help and information. Please share your thoughts here if you agree. --Mtc (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)