Talk:Key:park ride

Objects

Why are relations not recommended for the park_ride key? I personally have created many parking lots that require relations because they have several small lots that comprise the park & ride lot, are split by another feature (very common for lots that service train and metro stations), or have geometry that can not be created by a simple area.

Please read Semantic elements. It means non-area relations. However, this should also be acceptable for site=parking ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, wondering same too. I've just created one for bicycle parking comprising of three distinct areas delimited by bushes that was recently converted into a multipolygon. There are bicycle + train parking areas, for example, too. Example: [1] --Jplahti (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I was some time later pointed out that this actually should not be tagged with park_ride key. It is considered generally available to the public when not distinctly signed with a park&ride traffic sign, and in this case it is just normal "P"-sign along with a subsidiary bicycle sign. And I think it is correct as we should tag what is on the ground anyway. --Jplahti (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Status

@Angoca: The enormous count of uses (141,688) qualifies for status "de facto", IMHO. All descriptions should be updated to "de facto". --Chris2map (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Angoca: status updated to "de facto". --Chris2map (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)