OpenStreetMap
During our recent trip to Florence, a notoriously car-unfriendly city, I found this car park. I forgot to take a picture, but it obviously once was a paid car park that has been abandoned since. (By the authorities that is, not so much by the drivers.) The small building at the northern end looks like it might have served for the personnel and at the entrance and exit there are what looks like remains of lift gates that have been broken or sawn off. There are no blue signs with white “P” on them but there are no parking restrictions either. Many of the cars there were covered with a thick layer of dust, some had long (as in months) overdue parking tickets behind their wipers, others looked quite ordinary and came and went during our stay.
I asked some passers-by and all of them confirmed that it was ok to park there and that the locals regularly do so, only that we shouldn’t leave anything of value in the car. I left the car there and it was still there the next day, quite happy and unharmed.
Of course, I mapped the whole thing and proudly added a “fee=no”. The trouble is, technically it’s not an “amenity=parking” at all because it’s not designated as such on-site. “disused:amenity=parking” comes to mind but it’s not disused either, as people keep using it. “access=permissive” and possibly “access=discouraged” come close but not quite. So I added “informal=yes” like some footpaths have, although the car park certainly was “intentionally established” and didn’t just “evolve”, as the Wiki defines it. Actually, I’m pretty sure I know at least a few car parks where “informal=yes” would fit perfectly, but this isn’t one of them.
So, do we have a better way of dealing with this?
토론
2017년 4월 6일 00:34에 jonwit님의 의견
Dubrovnik has one as well
2017년 4월 6일 22:59에 dieterdreist님의 의견
From all established tags, amenity=parking seems best, even in absence of a white P on blue background: if people park there (and it’s not forbidden), it’s a parking. While there is some kind of informality involved, it still was built as a parking so I’m not sure if the tag makes sense here
2017년 4월 7일 12:41에 michalfabik님의 의견
True, but the “informality” was exactly what I wanted the user to be aware of. There’s another car park right next to it, which looks virtually the same, only it has signs and parking metres (and it’s not guarded, so it’s not like you’re paying for some extra service). I would be quite surprised if the local authorities just let you choose whether to pay for parking or not. Basically, I wanted some sort of a “guarantees=no” tag.
2017년 4월 7일 13:33에 jonwit님의 의견
I understand now.
For all formal purposes this parking lot unlike the others is “abandoned” just as the a road, mall, or house can be but you can still use it. Yes there is still signs saying to pay but its not enforced.
I would give it a tag abandoned. abandoned=yes
2017년 4월 7일 13:40에 michalfabik님의 의견
There are no signs either. There’s literally nothing telling you (or even implying) that it’s a parking lot, other than its physical appearance and the fact that it’s being used as such.
2017년 4월 7일 14:48에 jonwit님의 의견
The amenity parking wiki page says:
Use amenity=parking to tag a facility used by the public, customers, or other authorised users for parking motor vehicles
So as per the wiki if this area’s primary use is for parking motor vehicles the area can be tagged as a parking lot. Any additional tag will then provide more information (i.e. abandoned=yes, access=yes, fee=no, operator=none). I would stick with the additional tags already defined by the community but your free to add others (i.e. informal=yes)
2017년 4월 10일 11:13에 joost schouppe님의 의견
I’ve used impromptu=yes for situations like this. It’s mostly used to mark camp spots that are used but not official