Talk:Proposed features/parking aisle

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Not a good idea. lanes within parking areas are quite ill-defined. --Hawke 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've seen it done on other maps, and it works qite well. Nickvet419 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • here is an example of what i mean [1] Nickvet419 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow, that's pretty ugly IMO. :-D --Hawke 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • it also takes any confusion out of where parking entences and exits are. Nickvet419 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any confusion in where parking entrances/exits are. Example: [2] --Hawke 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll add that it is better than misusing highway=service for this purpose though. --Hawke 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with just using highway=service here? I'm pretty sure that's been used elsewhere for this application. In any case, I don't like the value name. To me, "parking lane" implies an area/lane along a highway where (emergency?) parking is allowed. --SiliconFiend 05:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that the name just 'sounds wrong'. But I can't really think of a better one. Rorym 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For me, "highway:service" is the right tag. Maybe "service" is rendert a bit to wide for parkings, but the tag is ok. --Torstiko 05:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • For Main roads in a parking area highway=service works fine as discribed in Parking, but for individual lanes they are too wide and clutter the area. Nickvet419 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I see what you say about the name... couldn't think of a better name at this time. Nickvet419 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I allready use highway=service and it's perfect for this ... --PhilippeP 06:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried out highway=service lanes=number_of_lanes. It seems that service roads are already one lane roads, or I must be doing somthing wrong. I would like to se an example. --Nickvet419 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Renderers don't use it, yet. And no default value for number of lanes in a highway=service has ever been defined or even suggested. Comments on using lanes=* was potential ways to make it happen. Alv 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sample mapped car park (and yes, I realize there's work left to be done). At zoom levels 16 and 17, highway=service doesn't look that bad. It's no good at 14 and 15, though. I'm not sure about adding a new highway value, service does seem to fit these ways. On the other hand, I can see wanting to distinguish between different levels of service roads. In the example, the through roads are highway=unclassified, I think. One thing I've been thinking of is significance=minor, which should cause renderers to render the feature the same, but shifted by a zoom level or two (so if highway=service is rendered 5px wide at zoom 14, a minor highway=service would be rendered 5px wide at zoom 16. Robx 06:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right that it looks decent at zoom=17,18 [3]. You don't need to see that much deatial beond zoom=17. That's the main reason I made this proposal. highway=service just doesnt cut it for these spacific lanes. Nickvet419 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This is a rendering problem, renderer should be able to use the lanes=number_of_lanes to make the way smaller or wider , it does not need another highway tag --PhilippeP 07:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I second that. it's a rendering problem and not a problem of capturing local situation. The Renderer in general should use more lanes=number_of_lanes.--Cbm 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
          • do you have an example of this? please post. Nickvet419 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
            • how would you get an example, if (so far) renderer doesn't care about lanes=number_of_lanes , that's what must change ...--PhilippeP 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
            • From looking at the style rules, it seems to be possible to add a rule to some zoom levels so that "if highway=service and lanes=1 draw thin-service else draw service". Alv 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
              • please add this rules! --Cbm 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
              • So how do we go about getting this implamented? it seems like it could work. --Nickvet419 12:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have access to some detailed enough data on the minor routes within a parking area, wouldn't it be possible to draw approximations of the actual corridor extents? In other words, use a measurement tool in JOSM and make each corridor approximately it's real width and have the possible curbs/barriers between corridors mapped, too? Approximating the width adequately is quite easy, a common parking space is 5 meters in length (in Europe, at least) and the minor routes at least of the same width; that makes a total of 15 meters. Measuring the total width of the parking area and dividing by the number of corridors gives some confirmation - just subtract the width of the curb. If it's all open space with some spaces drawn on the ground, people would drive around freely when there are no cars and even then the major routes are the ones not directly facing the parking spaces and can continue to be tagged as highway=service. And if one is mapping things to that level of detail, using "align nodes in a line" is almost a must and not available in potlatch, so some other editor is needed anyway. Alv 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To me parking_lane sounds like the outermost lane of a normal road, which has been reserved for parking for some parts of the day. But I'm not a native English speaker. If a highway type is needed, I'd want it to be something more general, something that could be used for e.g. Proposed_features/Driveway, too. For any narrow slow driving route outside "normal" highways being situated specifically in a parking area makes little difference. Alv 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I could see it being used for drivways also, It could posibly be merged into one term if done corectly. It should really be confined to being viewable to only zoom 17,18. --Nickvet419 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with that mapping those lanes would be useful. However, I agree that it's a rendering issue. I think highway=service is already the right highway tag for those lanes. If the rendering of them is not good for this case, some other information could be used instead of a new highway tag (e.g. lanes=* or an additional tag that will help the renderer). Additionally, the name is confusing: I also thought the proposal was about the lanes used for parking on the side of normal roads. --Ehabkost 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 'parking lane' makes me think of places where one lane of a regular road is dedicated to use as parking spaces... Ojw 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think it's only a rendering issue. --Pieren 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, a rendering issue. Is there a way to show a service road at only zoom 17 and 18? If not, then we need this proposal to properly map out parking areas. --Nickvet419 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Discuss reworking of this proposal

  • There are now a few Alternate Name Sugestions. Lets discuss what name is best to use and how it should be taged. --Nickvet419 10:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts on them as a non-native English speaker: parking_access says to me it's the entrance to a parking, so doesn't qualify really. driving_lane or single_lane give no hint it's about parkings, parking_lane looks like the "lane" where cars park on a normal road. car_park_lane is too narrow since there are bus or truck parkings as well. So I guess that leaves parkinglot_lane or parking_aisle then, but I don't like the "lane" part, so I'd go with parking_aisle. (but highway=service should be good for them anyway)--Eimai 03:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If this must be mapped, parking_aisle sounds best to me. --Hawke 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was leaning towards parking_aisle, so I'll do the change. I agree whith what you said above,about misusing highway=service. The roads the usually enter the parking area would technicaly be concidered highway=service, but the aisle's connecting to the parking spaces would not. Thanks for the input. --Nickvet419 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Archive

Alternate Name Sugestions?

  • parking_access
  • driving_lane
  • parking_lane
  • parkinglot_lane
  • parking_aisle
  • single_lane
  • car_park_lane

Alternate solution

highway=service service=parking_aisle With that methode there is much more flexibility without creating several new highway-parameters. --Cbm 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good and not drawing these on lower zooms seems doable. service=* is used with railway=* but a railway siding or spur on the same way as a parking aisle seems unlikely and if such a place exists, they can be drawn separately with minimal separation or the same nodes. Alv 11:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a good solution. With this we can break down highway=service into more spacific atributes as in parking_aisle and driveways and so on. When this vote is over we can modify this proposal to expand on the service key.--Nickvet419 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)