Proposal:Park and Ride

For a more recent discussion on parking tags, incorporating some of the conclusions below, see Proposed features/Parking

Obsoleted by Proposed features/Parking

Park and Ride
Proposal status:	Obsoleted (inactive)
Proposed by:	Batchoy
Tagging:	amenity=park_ride
Statistics:
Rendered as:	See subpage
RFC start:	2007-06-10

Rationale

There is a need to identify park and ride facilites as distinct entities to regular parks facilities. For those who are unaware of 'Park and Ride' amenities, these are carparks typically on the outskirts of large towns and cities associated with some form of transport to ferry users into the town/city. What marks them out from a regular carparks is that the fee charged includes both the use of the carpark and the return journey into the town/city.

Applies to

Nodes.

Usage

<tag k="amenity" v="park_ride"/>
<tag k="class" v="bus|train|tram|metro|ferry">

Examples

	Park and Ride: Default or Bus <tag k="amenity" v="park_ride"/> or <tag k="amenity" v="park_ride"/> <tag k="class" v="bus"/>
	Park and Ride: Train <tag k="amenity" v="park_ride"/> <tag k="class" v="train"/>
	Park and Ride: Tram, Metro <tag k="amenity" v="park_ride"/> <tag k="class" v="metro|tram"/>

Icon Design

The icon is based on the standard parking sign, with the addition of the half car and half bus/train/metro symbol with a plus sign between then them.

The XML code for all these symbols can be found here.

Batchoy 21:00 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes and Comments

I've never encountered a park and ride where the fee was merged. Either the parking was free, or had a separate fee. BART (San Fransisco) park and ride parking can only be payed after entering the platform, so cannot be used for local parking.

I have no idea why it matters, but I know a P+R where the fee is indeed merged. Belgabor 20:13, 5 April 2007 (BST)

Opinion

I'll vote against this, see why : [1] --Bartv 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your missing something important regarding Park & Rides. They're destinations in their own right - some people will use these instead of driving into a town/city centre - and are therefore necessary for navigation - they're not just something for "Open Yellow Pages" or whatever. Richard B 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd concur with that. P&R is an important part of a street-level map. --Richard 09:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Include --PaulY 10:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Park & Ride is as important if not more important that Parking, and the two need to be differentiated. If a Park & Ride scheme exists you can guarantee that parking in town will be both limited and extremely expensive. The aim of these schemes is to stop people taking their vehicles into town, thus as a user of a streetlevel map one needs to know one, that they exist, two where they, and three on the same map that one is doing the route planning, not by having to go looking on yet another map to find them. -- Batchoy 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, park and ride is an inportant feature. In places such as Oxford having them on the map is very helpful for outsiders coming into the city. Is this ready to move onto a vote? Ben. 04:29 18th Decemeber 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is important feature that we can't do without, but the structure should be more hierarchical: amenity = parking; park_ride = bus|train|tram|metro|ferry. Renderers that do not know about park and ride (like the current Osmarender) will still give a decent result. This is a general point: if there is clear inheritance, as in this case, use it in the tag design. Chrismorl 23:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While again agreeing that the concept is important, I go further: I think the combined use of existing tags is the way forward: the large areas of parking are area/node amenity=parking and the usually central bus area are amenity=bus_station. These sites are usually very large areas for which a single node tag is inadequate. If this proposal was adopted I think the parking should still be represented as amenity=parking with the P+R icon replacing the bus station, or perhaps even qualifying amenity=bus_station User:David.earl Feb 2007

Why qualify amenity=bus_station? The only park and ride I remember (in Oxford) is hardly a station, more a glorified stop, anyway. There will be bus/rail/metro/tram stations/stops in or adjacent to parking areas that aren't part of park and ride facilities. I think it's fine to draw the area of the parking lot, then have a node wherever appropriate to denote the kind of park and ride facilities. TomChance 09:44, 6 April 2007 (BST)

The current explanation in Proposed_features/Parking is inappropriate : you cannot say that parking_type "Could also be park_and_ride" Parking_type is used for geometrical properties (multi-storey, underground or surface). park and ride is a legal property. It is not exclusive from these values. Art.penteur 12:10, 04 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting

• I approve this proposal. --KristianThy 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Batchoy 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal in the current form, see above. Chrismorl 23:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal, see above. User:David.earl 2007-02-18
• I oppose this proposal, for the same reason as David.earl -- Bruce89 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. TomChance 09:44, 6 April 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. lolli78 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal, but it'd also be happy with Chrismorl's idea of amenity=parking with a park_and_ride tag on it. Gagravarr 16:33, 24 April 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal, --Jannis 01:30, 18 May 2007 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal in the current form, but I'd be happy with Chrismorl's idea. Socks 24 May 2007
• I oppose this proposal, but would be happy with Chrismorl's idea. --Hawke 04:21, 11 June 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. Cohort 07:07, 11 June 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal, but i would also be happy with Chrismorl's idea --inas 23:34, 11 June 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal, but I prefer Chrismorl's idea of amenity=parking with a park_and_ride tag on it. --Jannis 14:58, 17 June 2007 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal, but approve Chrismorl's proposition. FredB 15:03, 17 June 2007 (BST)
• I approve this proposal for park & rides, and amenity=parking with a park_and_ride tag seems a good way to do it. - LastGrape
• I oppose this proposal, but approve Chrismorl's proposition. Vanagaudi 14:29, 07 February 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal, but approve Chrismorl's proposition. Vrabcak 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal, park and rides need to be at least there own class withing amenity parking. park and ride has a specific purpose and cannot be use as general public parking. also helps promote the use of public transportation in this time of need. --Jerjozwik 04:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal and think we should also say if park is free or inclusive with train/bus ticket. Emilio 10:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. a amenity=parkink plus a p+r=train/bus/tram/..., fee=yes/no would be better --PhilippeP 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal, but approve Chrismorl's proposition. --Josias 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Will.i.am 19:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think David.earl's point of view is a strong one. --Krauti 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Metehyi --Metehyi 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Art.penteur 12:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This Proposal has a majority Approve vote for amenity=parking with a park_and_ride tag added to it. The proposal should be modified and put to a revote. --Nickvet419 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)