Changeset: 3472750
Aigle
Closed by hromain
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (2561 fr) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from keujfl839237
Is this a public parking? If not, please remove it or add an access key.
-
Comment from datendelphin
Please be more friendly SelfishSeahorse.
This change set is 7 years old. And it would be more appropriate to ask if it is known if it is public or not. A missing detail is not an error calling for deletion in my opinion. -
Comment from keujfl839237
Hi. Sorry for being too direct, I didn't want to appear unfriendly ... :-(
I just meant that if these are private parkings, they shouldn't be mapped (or at least tagged with access=private, but then it wouldn't be an amenity anymore), because otherwise, they give wrong information to anyone looking for a car park in that area. I think it's better to have no information that wrong one.
-
Comment from keujfl839237
*than wrong one.
-
Comment from freebeer
Hi,
To me the point should be to map what is on the ground, what exists, regardless of use.
OSM data is not only used to find the nearest carpark, but these lots would be suitable for a visitor to these (presumably) flats who may well be allowed use of them,who would lose out by removing the data, but more importantly, to emergency responders for whom this mapped information could be valuable to locate the nearest and best access to a particular address. Remove this and the no-doubt-private driveways and then see if an ambulance crew, multiple responders, can deduce what is best to reach unit 18 here. -
Comment from keujfl839237
Hi
Mapping private car parks without access=private may be useful for ~1% of people (visitors) but makes this tag useless for the other 99%. (And emergency vehicles need to know where the driveways are, not the car parks.) -
Comment from datendelphin
It is also of interest to pedestrians or cyclists. It's a land mark. For example one could remember "It's the building on the left, right after the car park"
-
Comment from hromain
Hello, I am the reporter of these car parks. I think that no one should be a judge of the utility of a tag compared to an other. As already said, a car park is a land use, like the others. And I think that emergency vehicles aren't real users of openstreetmap (it would be very dangerous!!). So I think that speaking of deletion is not fair.
For the real issue of the public or private use of the car park, if you think that it would be valuable to add this information, you can check this page : https://www.aigle.ch/N344/parkings.html and report the informations. However, be careful to use the proper attribute : in most of cases, only parking is restricted, and it is allowed to go through the car parks to foot and reach pedestrian ways (see for example https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.3219804,6.9581597,3a,73.2y,220.38h,99.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHGzXCdWfYzupJHVP0pdSJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 )
Cheers
-
Comment from keujfl839237
Salut and thanks for replying.
I don't think that car parks for visitors properly tagged with access=private are useless; what I wanted to say is that amenities without access key imply that they can be used by the public. Therefore, not tagging private car parks with access=private gives wrong information to anyone looking for a car park in that area. -
Comment from freebeer
You are reading more into things than you should. An untagged carpark should be treated as, to paraphrase a g00gle error message I see often, `there is a car park here. That's all we know.' I have mapped hundreds of such objects with absolutely no way to definitively say whether they are public, private, for customers, or whatever. That is something which can only be added with local knowledge.
I would assume from looking at these car parks in question that they belong to the nearby buildings, but then, I would not rely on OSM info alone.
Nobody here will oppose or object to additional data added based on existing data to improve it, but wishing to delete incompletely-tagged info will raise alarms.hromain, OSM data is seeing increased use due to the accuracy and up-to-date-ness of its data in some places; in fact, I was asked to create a solution for the Rotes Kreuz in response to a difficult call they received in an area already micro-mapped.
Use of a site like aigle.ch you mention should be done only if the licence is compatible (I have not checked), of course.
And I suspect anyone looking for a carpark in the area is visiting, as the other local destinations (school) shows closer parking. And probably on-street parking is also available, I would guess. Which perhaps is not yet mapped. -
Comment from keujfl839237
> You are reading more into things than you should.
Are you sure? So, public car parks have to be tagged with access=yes? This is something we're not doing for any other amenities and most else (roads, parks etc.).
> And I suspect anyone looking for a carpark in the area is visiting ...
If you're on H11 and want to search for the next public car park e.g. on Maps.me, you'll get dozens of private car parks, but not the public ones. This is a major disadvantage of OSM compared to Google, Search.ch, Here, Bing etc.
- 47078398, v1
- 47078399, v1
- 47078400, v1
- 47078401, v1
- 47078402, v1
- 47078403, v1
- 47078404, v1
- 47078484, v1
- 47078485, v1
- 47078619, v1
- 47078620, v1
- 47078621, v1
- 47078622, v1
- Chemin de Pré d'Emoz (46944697), v8
- 47078740, v1
- 47078741, v1
- 47078742, v1
- Chemin de Pré d'Emoz (46944697), v9
- 47075679, v2
- 47079105, v1
Relations (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |