DwarfLord wrote:(Edit: I definitely like the idea of using a Parking-Lot Place Point to identify parking that does not satisfy the general-purpose and general-public principles.)
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:CBenson wrote:I agree with your logic. But, if we are going to mark every urban pay parking lot as an area place, we are essentially conceding that downtown areas will be completely covered with area places. Such lots aren't reference points for navigation, they are just potential destinations.
I don't see why every PLot needs to be an Area.
DwarfLord wrote:qwaletee wrote:Perhaps guidance should be that if a parking lot is inside a structure that primarily has non-PL purposes, it should only be mapped as a point at its one or two primary entrances. If it is open air or has a dedicated parking building, it can be marked as a point if it has one or two primary entrances, or as an area if it is either a prominent "landmark" or has many entrances that would cause clutter if marked individually.
I really like the idea of using entrance count as a criterion for area vs. point, combining with the requirement that the entire enclosed area be dedicated to parking.
My initial thought is that even just two entrances would qualify a dedicated parking area for the Area type, but that depends on what happens if one sticks with Place Points instead. Is there leaning towards providing facilities with multiple entrances with a separate Place Point for each entrance? That's a head-scratcher for me due to the editor clutter and maintenance overhead involved.
I would think that multiple entries into a parking facility, at least, should be handled with Parking-Lot Roads and the routing engine combined with a single Point (located slightly interior rather than explicitly favoring one entrance or the other).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users