Proposal talk:More Parking Spaces

Namespaces

We should use a namespace like spaces:*=* or better use the already used tag capacity=* as capacity:*=*! --Phobie 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but then we would have to replace the already established disabled_spaces=#. Shall we do that? --Lulu-Ann 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that capacity=* for unspecified capacity, and capacity:*=* for specified capacity is good. capacity=* is already documented, each specified subcategory can be linked to the existing description and thus all specified types documented on the same page. It is also a logical name for the tag (though indicating that the argument should rather be a number than yes/no). As far as I know, disabled_spaces=* is the only of these tags that already have some usage, and doing a bot conversion of one single tag shouldn't be too difficult. --Skippern 09:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK for me. --Lulu-Ann 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Using capacity=* and capacity:*=* sound reasonable. The values yes/no should be given if the exact number of spaces is not known. --Augustus.kling 16:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the naming of the capacity classes should also be addressed in this proposal. Currently, some classes are given in singular form (capacity:parent=*) and others are given using the plural (capacity:women=*). I suggest changing the naming so that the plural form is to be used instead because one refers to multiple spaces usually. Examples would be capacity:parents=*, capacity:women=*, capacity:tents=*, capacity:caravans=*, capacity:buses=*. What do you think? --Augustus.kling 16:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Plural form is OK for me. User 5359 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

should we add a capacity:charging_stations or something like that for parking spaces dedicated to electric cars? those will pop up more often in the future when electric cars become mainstream flaimo 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think charging_station=* should imply a parking place, not the other way around. --Lulu-Ann 12:26, 18 October 2010 (BST)

space types disjunct?

Are those types of spaces supposed to be disjunct (that is, the total capacity is the sum of all individual space types), or is it possible that some spaces may be used by both busses and hgv, for example? --Tordanik 10:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if they were disjunct, but they are often not, for example at German motorway parking areas. The question is: If I am driving in a certain vehicle, looking for a space to park, do I care about the sum of spaces or only about the types I can use? I imagine the navigation software configuration menu with control boxes for "choose parking spaces types", not with radio buttons. --Lulu-Ann 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First I will say, I appreciate your proposal LuLu-Ann! I agree with you, a good navigation system would present a screen (or a configuration parking profile in settings), to make a choice which kind of parking choices should be used in the calculation for a route. A good navigation system uses %-fields to make a decision, which kind of parking a user prefers first and in a priority order. For instance a mother with children would give "women" and "children" each 48% and "standard" 4% and all other 0% ;-) Let the user decide, not the software. But that shouldn't be the problem of tagging, right?

For this propsal you have my vote! --Steffterra 17:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

bicycle parking

Would it be possible to include bicycles, aswell, and replace amenity=bicycle_parking --Skyper 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

charging for electrically powered cars

An idea would be to also include the capacity of parking slots to be used for charging electrically powered cars. What do you think about? --MichaelK (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)