Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Group parking POI which are within a relation (site=parking) #19873

Open
schnackOpPlatt opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Group parking POI which are within a relation (site=parking) #19873

schnackOpPlatt opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
Nice to Have Should be fixed but there is no priority or no possibility to fix it within current horizon planning

Comments

@schnackOpPlatt
Copy link

Describe the idea (required)

There is an approved tagging scheme with relations that groups parking-elements together ( type=site, site=parking ). So If I search for parking (spaces), I would like to get just one result for all these elements which are grouped. There also might be a name tagged on the relation. Also tags like fee or opening hours are inherited from the relation to the elements.

Examples:

Tell us about the expected behaviour (required)

On the map I would like to see just one POI if I zoom out; If I zoom in I would expect to see all entrances of e.g. a parking garage (example 2), but maybe not every single parking_space/s (example 1).

If I search for parking spaces I definitely don't want to have listed every single space, but just the relation and I don't need to see both entrances of the underground parking lot

Tell us about alternatives you've considered (required)

No.

Context (optional)

No response

@schnackOpPlatt
Copy link
Author

schnackOpPlatt commented May 14, 2024

Here the parking spaces "Parkbucht" are shown five times and without a name and the underground Parking (Grand Elyseé) is shown three times (there is an unnamed entrance). The opening_hours which are tagged on the relation aren't shown.

@schnackOpPlatt
Copy link
Author

schnackOpPlatt commented May 14, 2024

Maybe this could be grouped a little bit earlyer?

@vshcherb vshcherb added the Nice to Have Should be fixed but there is no priority or no possibility to fix it within current horizon planning label May 15, 2024
@vshcherb vshcherb added this to the future-backend milestone May 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Nice to Have Should be fixed but there is no priority or no possibility to fix it within current horizon planning
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants