Talk:Approved features/Parking

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Well done for starting some of the thinking on this. For my 2pence, I'd like to see as much re-use of existing attributes (and as much re-usability) as possible. So for instance, free=yes rather than parking_fee=no.

I don't quite understand the need for a 'hiking parking' tag - surely that's just a car park near some hiking area (woods, etc), it's not a type of car park?

Also, parking=surface seems a bit confusing. Is that intended to mean car parks that are on the ground, as opposed to multi-story? If so, surely this is just the default assumption.

For spaces, I'd recommend using spaces=x (eg spaces=100), however I wouldn't expect this to be used much.

We should also consider using private=yes for private car parks (eg for residents).

Frankie Roberto 22:41, 30 July 2007 (BST)

The defaults should not be tagged, IMHO they are: car, free, surface. For some more ideas/icons what people already use with gpsdrive, see: and search for parking. I'm especially missing special tags for handicapped people and motorbike riders.

Do we want to tag parking_fee=2EUR or will this fee change too often?

A parking for hikers will often have a detailed map of the surrounding area and some marked hiking paths. So I would think tagging them seperate makes sense. BTW: They are often unpaved, so as a motorbike rider, I try to avoid them :-)

We also might need a common tagging for company car parks. They often use up huge spaces on the map but often also have only restricted access (by barrier, street sign, ...). As they are usually not public accessable but interesting for company employees, we might want to tag/render them differently than a normal car park. Is it enough to tag them access=permissive?

Ulfl 07:47, 31 July 2007 (BST)

I'd like to have a bicycle parking tag. As in Switzerland (and maybe Germany) there are often bicycle parking sations near railway stations or shopping centers. Possible tag could be <tag k="amenity" v="parking"/> <tag k="parking" v="bicycle"/>

The tha for handicapped people is a good idea.

With the parking fee tag, there could be some problems, because the fee could be verry complicated (e.g. between 6:00 am and 19:00 pm: 2 EUR for the first 2 hours, 1.5 EUR for further; between 19:00 pm and 2:00 am: 1.5 EUR; between 2:00 am and 6:00 am closed)

Studerap 08:48, 31 July 2007 (BST)

The parking_fee is a good idea, but i won't list the price (due to complexity, price depends on time, ...). The parking type is also very useful but I find the surface and multi-storey not correct. The values of this tag should be something different pointing out that the cars are parked in open air or under a roof. -- Raskas 09:06, 31 July 2007 (BST)
  • I agree on the complexity of pricing. It is good though to have some subjective indication of whether it is expensive or cheap. I currently use the description= tag to put something like "Flat fee of GBP5.50, same ticket can be used in other carparks in same area; no admittance after 19:00".
  • How about using parking=openair parking=covered instead of surface/mult-storey?
  • parking=hiking does seem country-specific, but I see no harm for a specialist tag like this; general renderers could simply treat it as parking=openair. BTW, I always use surface=paved/unpaved in conjunction with parking which may help user Ulfl above.
MikeCollinson 09:39, 31 July 2007 (BST)

The fee tag is not unique to parking, so we might want to simply use fee=yes instead of parking_fee=yes, this enables us to reuse it, e.g. for leisure=fishing, fee=yes. We already have toll=yes, but that doesn't seem to fit well here. I didn't thought about the complicated time restrictions, so simply adding fee=yes without any amount seems better IMO, but I wouldn't have any problem with some additional description.

In addition to multi-storey, we might also need roofed and underground. Although the street signs are usually the same, we might want to render it differently - especially underground parking.

Ulfl 09:50, 31 July 2007 (BST)

I would try to match the icons to the Unified Icon Set, would agree with a simple fee=yes/no... and would agree with a indoor/outdoor(or similar) for max height purposes ...--PhilippeP 09:54, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Thank you very much for your input to date. I'm with you on the more general fee=yes|no tag and differing between "indoor" and "outdoor" (or "openair"/"covered") instead of "surface" and "multi-storey". Additionally, I'm also proposing handicap=yes (kudos to Ulfl) or even with an integer value (e.g handicap=10 (there are 10 handicapped parking spaces)). The existence of this tag could be depicted with a wheelchair. As Ulfl mentioned, tagging a company car park should be incorporated, too. I think, access=permissive would do the job. In addition to this, we should also discuss the proper tagging of supermarket car parks etc. access=permissive, too? In my opinion, these should be rendered like a normal car park, but without the "P"-sign. And finally, I also think that we shouldn't tag the actual fee -- it would be to complicated. --Wabba 19:43, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Thinking allowed, here, seeing as 'outdoor' parking would be the assumed, default position, could you specify indoor parking, say within a shopping centre, by combining an area tagged as amenity=parking with a building=yes (or amenity=shopping_centre) tag? Obviously this wouldn't work for nodes... Frankie Roberto 20:14, 31 July 2007 (BST)
Also, I'd agree with specifying availability of handicapped spaces, but should this be called 'disabled' instead, brearing in mind these sensitives and the fact that the blue badge scheme refers to 'disabled parking bays'? Frankie Roberto 20:14, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Okay, following questions remain:

  • surface/muti-storey, indoor/outdoor, openair/covered, roofed, underground: which is best?
I vote for parking=multi-storey and parking=underground. 'Surface' car parks is the implied default, so doesn't need to be tagged.Frankie Roberto
Covered parking is covered parking, regardless of whether it is multilevel or underground. Generally open-air lots don't have height restrictions, so I can park my big van in one, but cannot park it in a covered 'garage'. So all I personally care about is, is it roofed in? --Cohort 02:15, 8 August 2007 (BST)
I agree 100% with Cohort, the only thing relevant is : roofed or not ? --PhilippeP 20:28, 13 August 2007 (BST)
  • "parking=hiking"?
I don't like this, it's not very understandable.Frankie Roberto
As the German "Wandererparkplatz" has no special regulations in comparison to a normal car park, we could indeed omit this tag. --Wabba 23:26, 2 August 2007 (BST)
  • "disabled=yes|<number>"?
Agree. Although should it be disabled_spaces=yes, as some people might take disabled=yes in the computer terminology sense of being closed/unavailable? Frankie Roberto
Good point! --Wabba 23:26, 2 August 2007 (BST)
What about a disabled-only parking space? Non-disabled people are not allowed to park there, so it shouldn't show on the map as a "regular" car park. Wabba
There can't be many of these (we should only tag dedicated car parks, not just parking spaces on the site of a road). In the rare occurrence, you could show it by having amenity=parking, spaces=100, disabled=100. Frankie Roberto
Okay. --Wabba 23:26, 2 August 2007 (BST)
Oh yes there can! Thousands of businesses are required by law to have dedicated parking spaces accessible to vans with wheelchair lifts on the side. Often their small parking lots serve this purpose only. All other visitors have to park on the street. T99 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Include "parking=park_ride" and "parking=bicycle", although they already have their own tags? Wabba 13:58, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Agree. Although should it be parking=park_and_ride (I'm in favour of spelling things out). Frankie Roberto
But mentions a tag "park_ride = bus/train/tram/metro/ferry/yes", which is not described here. What's the definitive solution ? Art.penteur 06:02, 28 August 2009
  • Allow both fee=yes|no and free=yes|no?
I would prefer fee=yes|no. --Wabba 23:59, 2 August 2007 (BST)
  • access=permissive or access=private?
Depends... If the car park is usually open for everyone (but still on private land), e.g. a supermarket car park, we should use permissive. If you have to ask someone to access the car park (for example ring a bell or there is a barrier etc.), it sould be private--Wabba 23:59, 2 August 2007 (BST)
  • There should also be an icon for time restricted parking. Both in duration, e.g. max 2 hours, or absolutely, e.g. only between 18:00-06:00. Nikolaj 10:28, 4 August 2007 (BST)
Figuring out a way of programmatically tagging all the possible types of restrictions (max length of stay, times, dates, unloading, market times, etc) is probably beyond the scope of this proposal... Frankie Roberto 23:08, 5 August 2007 (BST)
  • What about lay-bys (German: Rastplatz)? I think those should be tagged as a seperate kind of car park, as they are part of a motorway. Therefore, they should be displayed at a lower zoom level than regular car parks. --Wabba 07:56, 7 August 2007 (BST)
  • What about motorcycle bays? In the UK these are often only present in certain car parks and useful to record since motorcycles can't park elsewhere without paying charges. Njd27 10:26, 13 August 2007 (BST)

covered parking

Height and weight restrictions are good to know. Underground is useful when navigating. You know it will be hard to see. Bicycles: covered: in a structure or covered with a partial awning. --Korea 01:01, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Trucks and campers

Here's some things that would be useful for the US. Are large trucks allowed? Overnight? Is idling allowed? Running generators? Is there separate heavy truck and car parking? How many days? Only those delivering at the location? Are campers allowed? Overnight? Some uncovered lots have a bar over the entrance to restrict height as a method of keeping heavy vehicles off the lot. --Korea 01:07, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Also some truck stops have air conditioning, cable TV, telephone and Internet available in the truck parking lot. (see: IdleAire)--Korea 01:37, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Camper park places, would be really handy for POIs etc.! There are lots of camper park places, but there is no tag in OSM for it. Ayke 14:14, 30 August 2010 (BST)

Fee tag

For the 'fee' it might be worth sharing the same tagging scheme amongst any feature where cost is relevant -- Proposed features/Price tags. Ojw 12:20, 23 September 2007 (BST)


There is a discrepancey for disabled parking to :
disabled_spaces vs. capacity:disabled

I like the version capacity:disabled better.

Passenger pick up/drop off (aka "Kiss and ride")

I would love to see "park and ride" included in this somehow. There doesn't seem to be a definitive conclusion.

I'd also love to figure out a way to tag a "kiss and ride", or "passenger pick-up/drop-off zone". These are common at almost every commercial airport, as well as many train/metro stations. The airport case has a huge benefit to navigation, allowing users to say "I'm going to airport terminal C, where is the drop-off zone for it?" --BigPeteB 16:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't discuss here at the approved feature, discuss in the open proposal. We have a kiss'n'ride here, too! Lulu-Ann