I will add the City of London.
If you couldn’t find information about Canada Wide Parking Inc. I doubt you will see the information when you map the parking in WME.
My view on it is if they have parking enforcement people that have uniforms (small companies wouldn’t bother with uniforms), then they should be added to the provider list.
We could use other criteria, too… but that’s a start.
I’m ok adding companies that manage as few as a half-dozen or so lots.
I thought of a much bigger number than half a dozen.
If we had been consulted on design, I probably would have suggested it be a free-form box with some auto-fill.
I don’t see any reason to limit it other than to say that single-location situations (e.g. a large mall) don’t count as “providers”.
Just as with gas stations, as long as they’re a bona fide provider, they should be listed.
With no limits we will easily get an endless list of operators, where many of them may be operating a negligible number of lots.
Same story as Gas Stations, where independent operators should not get a listing of their own.
No, independents shouldn’t. But if it’s a named chain of 3, then I don’t have a problem with it.
Honestly, this is a design issue. We need to put the correct data in, regardless of how dumb the interface is.
On another topic related to parking lots, I really dislike a couple of aspects of the current setup. Parking lots associated with a store are set to restricted, which means that they don’t appear in suggested parking. This then means that if there is public parking in the area, that lot is suggested rather than the store parking. I understand that at some point parking will be linked to the business which should solve the issue, and I guess is coming soon…
The other aspect is large lots (above 20000m2) have their lot name displayed in the client, which looks terrible and in some cases the lot is associated with a point place, so again, looks terrible in the client.
To answer your first one - the US is adopting a change to their approach, and it is supposed to be in the EN-US WME tooltip.
Basically, if it’s a lot (regardless if it would normally qualify as “restricted”) that someone would want to be directed to, leave it as public.
I’m taking the approach that if it isn’t private parking (i.e. you must have a permit), then I’m leaving as public.
The second one is a known issue and is part of why we waited so long to implement this feature.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the client behavior change to show both Public and Restricted lots? If everything is changed to Public, what is the need for Restricted? Obviously the alternative would be to remove Restricted as a lot type all together and only have Public and Private.
Yes.
But changes to the client often take months. That request has been made, but apparently it is not high priority.
Apparently this is a case of a situation that should really just say “[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE]” rather than put a label on it.
To stay consistent, let’s use “University of British Columbia” instead of “UBC Parking”
Could City of Kingston be added?