User talk:JeroenHoek

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dog access

Thanks for spotting old unresolved discussion. I moved dog=* to "see also" section, as it is about entering with a dog - not about dog riding.

And as result it is neither horse=* equivalent (which is about horse rider access) nor subset of transport without a vehicle.

Again, thank you for your edit, hopefully you are OK with my change Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for talk page review

Also, thanks for pointing out long response time. Thanks to your comment and reviewed the page and noticed request for examples, from 2009. I finally added them (at beginning of the page) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. JeroenHoek (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)



I have seen that you use and propose parking=street. I'm also mapping such things sometimes, but parking=lane is more often in use and a better value from a semantic point of view. I assume you mean these? There is also parking=layby in use which I use for parking "pockets" like this or this.--Supaplex030 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing. Your work in Berlin looks good.
I saw parking=lane, but it seems to be specifically about parking parallel along a street, being the explicitly mapped equivalent of parking:lane=*. It's not completely clear to me if parking=lane is only meant for explicitly marked (by lines or road layout) parking areas, or any roadside parking. I guess it makes sense for those parking areas directly parallel to the road where cars park in the same direction and orientation as the traffic flow.
I've looked at parking=layby too, but it seems to be mostly used for literal lay-by's (in the first sense of the word as defined here: “A paved area at the side of a highway designated for drivers to stop in, for emergency parking, or where vehicles can wait, with larger lay-bys possibly having facilities like food vendors or public telephones.”. That is, mostly (emergency) parking areas outside of settlements. It didn't seem right to use it for normal street-side parking, especially if the emergency parking nature of it is intended. Renderers might choose to render these more markedly than normal parking areas. A lack of documentation may be a problem here.
So I started using parking=street, because the mappers who already used that tag used it in the way I'm using it as well. I am working at some documentation to clarify this. I don't think having all three is problematic, but lay-by in particular may need some clarification in terms of documentation; especially if that tag serves to mark places where you can stop on a highway in case of emergencies. What I want to achieve eventually is to have tagging available that can be used by renderers to de-emphasize them compared to the other parking types. All the blue P's look silly for simple road-side parking, a smaller P or a suitable background colour would make the map much better, and make mappers less hesitant to map these areas. Of course the JOSM preset should have these too, so documentation is a first step.
What do you think?
(Example of a typical Dutch parking bay: (satellite view)
JeroenHoek (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You are probably right: parking=layby was originally intended for a different kind of parking. I mean exactly the kind of parking you show. In German language there are several synonymous but clear terms for this ("Parkbucht", "Parktasche", "Parkhafen"), but I'm not sure how it is in the English language. Maybe "parking bay" is a suitable term (but according to Taginfo it is very rarely used).
I personally associate "street" too strongly with "lane". I almost never use parking=lane because I think the parking:lane=* scheme is absolutely sufficient for that, but I have seen some mappers who use it to map on-street-parking lanes separately (like this). "Lane" parking doesn't have to be parallel: here in Berlin it is often diagonal or perpendicular (as shown in the picture). I recently invented "lane:parking"/"layby:parking" = "parallel"/"diagonal"/"perpendicular" (according to the parking:lanes schema), so that the orientation is not lost in separately mapped street parking.
All in all you are right: As long as there is no documentation or broader discussion about it, different mappers will use it inconsistently according to their personal taste. We could continue this discussion on Talk:Key:parking or Tagging Mailing List and propose a value for "parking bays" or do some research on an English name?--Supaplex030 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
'bay' refers to a single parking space, so 'bays' might work, but it might also lack something hinting at the primary characteristic of this type of parking. Not a bad idea to avoid street and lane though; I can always re-tag the parking areas in my area. parking=street_side might work perhaps?
I initially chose 'street' because I want to make it clear that these are street-side parking areas, distinct from parking=surface, which is a dedicated parking area usually off the main road, often for a specific purpose (shops etc.).
It might be best to prepare some sort of proposal or at least some background on the wiki before going to the tagging-ML though, in order to have concrete examples (with photo's) and a good explanation. JeroenHoek (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
+1. i will also search again for a suitable term. Do you know native English speakers who could help us with this? We should start a small proposal with background information and examples together and present it on the mailing list when the time comes...--Supaplex030 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Helpful to have examples from two countries as well. JeroenHoek (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Jeroen, I gave the question about the term to some English (British) native speakers, which resulted in a funny discussion, but in the end they came to the conclusion that they don't know a specific term for it. In any case, I am using "Layby" incorrectly and will change it as soon as we have a better term. I think parking=street_side is quite good so far.
I also have a few photos of situations where I would use street_side (up to now "layby" in my case). I would define this kind of parking as an area suitable or designated for parking, which is directly adjacent to the street/roadway and is separated/interrupted by physical structures like curbs, curb extensions etc. (forming a kind of "pocket" or "bay"). In any case, this space could not be used continuously as a lane for driving if no vehicles were standing there (in contrast to parking=lane).
But I'm not sure yet how I would draw the line between "lane" and "street_side", because at least in my area there are often parking lanes, which are separated by a curb extension at the ends of the street (for example you can see it at this "curb line"). One possibility could be: If the road surface does not differ from the rest of the road, then this rather speaks for "lane". And if - apart from the two ends of the street - there are other "interruptions" (curbs/curb extensions, trees, street lamps, green verges...), then it is "street_side". (The length of the "pocket" or street is also relevant: If there is a interruption only at the beginning and at the end of a street, but the street is very short, a "pocket" is formed nevertheless.)
Here (OSM | Mapillary, left: street_side, right: lane) is another case where I used "street_side" [layby] and "lane" on the same street today: You could either use both tags together with "parking:lane" on the highway line or - especially the "street_side pockets" - map them as separate objects.
Would you agree with me so far - are we still talking about the same kind of parking lot? :) The example you have shown above is very clear, but I try to look for the edge cases to find a clear definition... --Supaplex030 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Another small example: This one would be surface instead of street_side for me, because it is not located directly next to a street but can only be reached via an service driveway. (Edit: But you could still add parking:surface=perpendicular to express the parking direction to the driveway. At least that's what I've been doing at street_side parking for a while now.)--Supaplex030 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are quite aligned in what we consider parking=street_side (to give it a name for now, but I think it works). Examples of what I consider typical, clear-cut cases of this:
Now this one is perhaps a little bit less clear. There is separation from the carriageway, but cars overlap:
Do I understand parking=lane correctly that it should be applied for cases where there is no delineation or markings at all, and people just park cars on the 'carriageway' (but usually following a locally established pattern of which side of the road to use; its quite odd to see that the side never changes somehow. I'll add a photo for that tomorrow.) This one example here above is probably parking=street_side, but I guess it edges into parking=lane territory the more it overlaps the carriageway? JeroenHoek (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Since there is no definition for parking=lane anywhere, everybody uses it in his own way... (Maybe you have seen this note.) I rarely use it, here exceptionally, because I didn't want to divide the road into many pieces for parking:lane tagging, but I still wanted to precisely map the parking lanes due to unusually wide driveways. There are even markings at this place, but for me personally that would not be a criterion of relevance (only for mapping capacity=* on them).
You also found a nice edge case. I have never seen one like it before ;) My opinion: "lane" would be if the car would stand mostly on the road. (Or use "lane;street_side" as the equivalent of "parking:lane* = half_on_kerb"..?)
By the way: I use this OSM information in my area for parking space and "area fairness" analyses, so I'm always very interested in the most accurate data possible ;) (See image here and documentation here (unfortunately only in German so far))--Supaplex030 (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Deutsch geht aber auch (zumindest lesen). Interessantes Projekt. :)
P.S. I like your precise micro-mappings, just my taste :)--Supaplex030 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll see if I can write down my thoughts on this topic this weekend so we can work that into a draft proposal. Did you have anything written down yet? JeroenHoek (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have just set up a basis/skeleton/stub for the proposal and tried to come up with a definition (see Proposed features/parking=street side). I also hope that I will be able to give it some more thought over the weekend. Feel free to change everything I have already written there :) --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I was not really aware until now that "lay_by" is the second most common use after "on_street" in the parking:lane scheme. Obviously this means chains of parking bays (as I enter them here in Berlin). Worldwide there are about 5,000 uses of this kind. (see
Of course this is not a solution for single parking bays, as you can see on many of your pictures. But it makes me doubt if we really have to "invent something new" or if we should rather adapt this scheme to separately mapped areas... What do you think? Should we after all get an early feedback from the Tagging Mailing List?--Supaplex030 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess we'd better ask. Do you want to take the lead on that? The documentation for lay_by on parking:lane=* is weird though. It links to (which describes the rural road-side parking area for short stops), but people use it for street-side parking areas… JeroenHoek (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I can do that in the next few days. I am not sure yet what would be a good solution...--Supaplex030 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I have now restructured and supplemented the proposal in such a way that in my opinion it has actually reached a presentable state that could be discussed. In your new chapter about relations to other parking-values (very good section/useful illustration, by the way!) I made some additions, especially at "layby", to show ambiguities.
Is there an explicit term in the Dutch language for the form of parking we mean? I have added a reference to the German terms and it could be interesting if you know more.
You know, I'm not rightly sure. Aside from the plural of parking space (parkeervak, so parkeervakken). There is parkeerstrook for what is essentially a parking-lane, and in more GIS-centered documentation there is parkeervlak. I think most people just say parkeervakken, or even the singular parkeervak to refer to the whole section. I'll ask the Dutch OSM-community. JeroenHoek (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could start an "official" RFC with this in the next days - or what do you think? Is it already ready for a broader discussion? --Supaplex030 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is almost ready. Though I would like to add a graphic similar to those in the parking-value section, but more general for the proposal section showing the types of areas intended for this tag. I'll see if I can finish that. JeroenHoek (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice graphic! I made it a little bit smaller and right-aligned - is that ok? So that it doesn't seem so dominant. How do you create these graphics, is it a mapping style or do you draw them yourself?
If you don't mind, I can start a first RFC soon?--Supaplex030 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead with the RFC! I'll try to field any questions on the mailing list as well.
I'm afraid I just hack together the graphics in Inkscape. That gives me the freedom to draw whatever is needed. I do use the colours and icons from Carto to make them feel more familiar and more clearly communicate their purpose. Glad you like them. JeroenHoek (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
After I presented our proposal here last night at an online meeting of part of our local community and received feedback and critical remarks, I have now made some additions and changes again. Especially the Rationale chapter has been updated to better explain why this tag is needed at all (not everyone was convinced). In the tagging chapter I made the two alternatives (separate vs. parking:lane scheme) more visible and also added a note about grouping with a relation.
I also got the feedback to emphasize the street_side areas on your images. I tried this on the first graphic with a new emphasized outline - if you have a better idea, you are welcome to change it again :)
Feel free to rechange everything. I will wait a day or two for more feedback and then send it to the Tagging Mailing List.--Supaplex030 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry you had to go to the trouble to edit the PNG; it's much easier to add details to the source SVG.
Note: Do not use parking=street_side on these parking spaces if they are already part of a larger area with this tag
This may be something that needs fixing in the JOSM preset of parking_space. I usually fill it in because of the preset that offers the drop-down list. Good call on the parking site relation instead of just a plain relation for groupin, I didn't think of that. JeroenHoek (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Again some changes after I got more feedback. Added some rendering samples now and regrouped the chapters, so "Tagging" is more visible and the layby/lay_by-Problem is a bit more highlighted.--Supaplex030 (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Just startet RFC. For your information, there's also a discussion at GitHub that deals with this type of parking in another context: --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Jeroen, I have just made a few minor changes to the proposal, including rewording the proposal introduction and adding another example. What do you think - should we start a voting at the end of the week? Or would you like to change something? Do you think the font in the graphic (see below) could be a bit bigger?--Supaplex030 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, I think we should be ready for voting by the weekend. I'll have a look at your changes tomorrow. JeroenHoek (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's looking good. JeroenHoek (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice, then I'll write a voting invitation today or tomorrow! --Supaplex030 (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

street-side parking graphics

Hey, saw your change to the graphics - but the criticism was more about the visibility of the individual parking_spaces. The first impression could be that these are meant by/part of the proposal. Hence the idea that the individual parking_spaces should either not be visible anymore (or only very slightly, dashed), but rather only the bay as a whole. Or, alternatively, that the bay as a whole is clearly highlighted... Because the bay object is the focus of our proposal. Do you understand what I mean and change it again?--Supaplex030 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll make the lines more transparent. JeroenHoek (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think, now it is visible enough :-p --Supaplex030 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you make the text on this graphic a bit bigger? It is difficult to read even at full resolution. Maybe the text for small areas next to them and draw a small line to the area? Thanks for your nice graphics! --Supaplex030 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


First of all, thank you for creating this proposal! I see you have edited the Key:parking page to accomodate for the new value. But why is still layby, lane etc documented? I thought part of the proposal was to deprecate those? --Westnordost (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I see our messages have crossed. I have addressed this here . — JeroenHoek (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)