| Note | # | Tmstmp UTC | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4725881 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-04-24 14:03 | opened | Jones57 ♦1 | This is a private area belonging to a homeowners' association, and parking is only permitted for residents and their guests. The parking markings must therefore be removed. |
| 2 | 2025-04-24 14:23 | closed | Lostmonkey ♦976 | Ændret til privat parkering | |
| 3 | 2025-04-30 09:50 | reopened | Jones57 ♦1 | ||
| 4 | 2025-04-30 09:50 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | This is not a parking area, and is not to be show as it parking | |
| 5 | 2025-04-30 09:52 | closed | Jones57 ♦1 | ||
| 6 | 2025-04-30 10:29 | reopened | Lostmonkey ♦976 | Clearly it is a parking area, as you also mentioned in the your comment. Perhaps 'parking=street_side'. That parking is exclusively for residents is what the 'access=private' tagging is for. | |
| 7 | 2025-04-30 10:41 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Agreed on both points. However, the issue is that when the area is shown as a parking zone on the map, it is used by people who have no affiliation with the area, thereby occupying spaces that residents are then unable to use. Therefore, it would be preferable if the area was not marked as a parking zone — similar to how a private residence with a driveway and several parking spaces is not marked as public parking. | |
| 8 | 2025-04-30 10:46 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Additionally, the spaces are, according to the statutes of the homeowners' association, allocated to the individual houses — meaning that each house has two designated parking spaces assigned to it. which, in principle, are not intended for use by others, although this has not been actively enforced. | |
| 9 | 2025-04-30 11:42 | commented | Lostmonkey ♦976 | Personally I am not going to engange in a "mapping war" over this but just want to reiterate that this is (in my opinion) already covered by the private tag. That some map renderers perhaps dont make use of the available data to make the distinction between private and public parking clear is not an issue with OSM. | |
| 10 | 2025-04-30 13:43 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | No intention of starting a "mapping war" here either 😄 Just to clarify where I'm coming from: the homeowners' association is dealing with an ongoing issue where residents are regularly finding their designated spots taken by non-residents. When confronted, these drivers often refer to their GPS saying it’s a public parking area. So while I fully appreciate that the "private" tag is in place (and agree it's the correct way to do it in OSM), the challenge seems to be that some apps don’t interpret that data clearly — and the end result is confusion on the ground. I realise that's not something OSM can directly fix, but just wanted to share the background, so you know it’s not about map politics — just about trying to make everyday life a bit easier for the folks living there. | |
| 11 | 2025-04-30 13:49 | commented | Lostmonkey ♦976 | Maybe try to wait a little longer to see if setting the private-tag makes a difference. It has been less than a week since I set it and apps and other maps often dont update their OSM-data that quickly. It can take several weeks or even months. | |
| 12 | 2025-04-30 17:38 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | That’s a fair point – I’ll definitely give it some more time to see if the update makes a difference in practice. That said, I still believe it might be better if the area isn’t marked as parking at all. Since the spaces are strictly reserved for residents, and not relevant for general public use, it seems more accurate (and perhaps less confusing) to leave it untagged as parking altogether. But I appreciate the effort you’ve already put into tagging it correctly – and happy to go with what the wider community considers best practice | |
| 13 | 2025-04-30 19:03 | commented | Lostmonkey ♦976 | I can of course understand your argument and sympathize with the residents. And perhaps removing it entirely would help to keep some people from parking there. On the other hand I think you will find that most experienced OSM-mappers will tell you it's a very slippery slope if you start tagging objects differently in OSM than they are in reality (or delete them) just to compensate for shortcomings in other apps (or people ignoring the info in the data). Also, regarding the "wider community": According to the OSM-wiki about mapping private information, "Mapping private buildings, private roads (including driveways), and private parking is completely acceptable. Add access=private as appropriate to roads, parking lots, etc." ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_private_information ) | |
| 14 | 2025-04-30 19:56 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Thanks for the detailed response – and fair point regarding OSM’s approach to representing real-world features accurately. I’ve read the wiki on Mapping private information, and I fully understand that mapping private parking is acceptable and even encouraged when tagged correctly with access=private. That said, the real issue we’re facing locally isn’t about tagging as such, but the practical consequence: these resident-only spots are showing up as general parking in various apps that don’t interpret the access restrictions. This leads to regular confusion and unwanted parking — and it’s becoming a real frustration for the people who actually live there. From that perspective, I’m simply trying to find a pragmatic way to reduce the misuse. I do realise removing the parking tag may go against general OSM practice, but since the parking is not intended for general use anyway, I still believe that omitting it entirely might more accurately reflect its functional availability to the public. I’m definitely open to alternative tagging suggestions that would achieve the same effect — keeping it invisible to most navigation apps while staying within OSM guidelines. Let me know if there’s a better route to that goal! | |
| 15 | 2025-04-30 20:33 | commented | Linus W Frische ♦1,309 | The thing is, that even if we remove it, nothing is stopping someone else from just readding it to the osm-database again in a year's time. You should contact the "various apps" and complain that they are showing private parking as publically accessable; urge them to parse the access key. | |
| 16 | 2025-04-30 20:44 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | That’s a valid point — and I understand that there’s always a chance someone might re-add it later. Still, I’d argue that we could just try removing the parking indication for now and see if that helps reduce the misuse. If it doesn’t stick long term, then at least we’ve tested it in practice rather than assuming in advance that it won’t last. Of course, I agree that apps should interpret the access key properly, and I’ll look into contacting a few of them. But from a resident’s perspective, even a temporary improvement would be a step in the right direction. Thanks again for the discussion — really appreciate the open exchang | |
| 17 | 2025-04-30 21:10 | commented | Lostmonkey ♦976 | From what I can see on streetview there is already a clear no entry sign (except for residents) for your street from the main road. In addition your street is also tagged 'private' in OSM. Perhaps blaming their map app is simply a bad excuse people come up with when confronted? In any case, I would still suggest giving it some time with the 'private' tag and then take it from there (complain to the app makers). | |
| 18 | 2025-04-30 22:16 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | You’re absolutely right — there is a sign at the entrance stating no entry except for residents, and the street is correctly tagged as ‘private’ in OSM. But in practice, that sign isn’t always respected, especially since parking is in high demand due to the hospital across the road. I agree that the GPS excuse might sometimes just be a convenient justification when people are confronted. Still, that’s exactly the kind of excuse I’d like to eliminate by ensuring the area doesn’t appear as publicly accessible parking in the first place. In short, while the intention behind the current mapping might be good, the result is that it causes frustration for a number of residents — without adding real value to the broader public. That’s why I still believe it would be more appropriate to remove the parking indication entirely in this case. Thanks again for the ongoing dialogue — it’s genuinely appreciated. | |
| 19 | 2025-05-11 11:37 | commented | cyclist789 ♦78 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.737226/12.547547&layers=N On osm.org itself, the 🅿️ for this parking lot is almost invisible, unlike those on the other side of Kildegårdsvej. (But maybe it was better to not display private areas *at all* on the main map.) As I understand it, the policy of OSM is to tag things *as they are*, and leave to the app-designers the responsibility of how to *display* them. But perhaps OSM should provide some best-practice guide for this (assuming that it doesn't already) to those that make the map apps and editor apps. I say the displaying of parking spaces should depend on both the *access*, *fee*, and *maxstay* tags. Maybe display "2:00h 🅿️💲" for 2-hour paid parking, and "🛍️🅿️" for customer parking, and hide any parking lots without recognized *access* tags. I also feel like the access values should be far more visible on maps than e.g. the difference between an unpaved footpath and an asphalt motorhighway. Do you happen to know which apps display parking lots poorly? There is also a chance that the ones who steal your parking spaces never used a map at all, but saw the parking lot through their car windows and thought: "If I get caught, I'll just lie and say that my GPS told me to park here." And besides, "my GPS told me" wouldn't hold in court. Tell the police to make them stop. | |
| 20 | 2025-05-11 13:54 | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Thanks for the thoughtful input — I agree with much of what you’re saying, especially the idea that app developers should be encouraged to factor in access, fee, and maxstay more actively in their visual design. And yes, the current 🅿️ indication on osm.org is quite subtle — but unfortunately, that’s not the case across all platforms. You’re absolutely right that “my GPS told me” wouldn’t hold in court — but the point is: why should that even be an excuse people can reach for, when we have the option of removing the cause of the confusion altogether? I still firmly believe that if the parking area is not intended for public use — and, in fact, is privately owned and allocated to specific residents — then the community of owners should reasonably have a say in whether it appears as a public amenity on the map. If other residents in similar situations suddenly saw their private driveway marked as a parking lot, I imagine they’d be equally frustrated — especially in a high-pressure area where parking is already a serious problem due to the nearby hospital. So while I appreciate the general OSM principle of mapping what exists physically, I think this is a clear example where displaying something brings more harm than benefit — and removing the parking tag would, in this case, reflect its actual availability better than its mere physical presence. Thanks again for taking the time to engage — I really value the constructive tone in this discussion. | |
| 21 | 2025-05-11 14:21 | closed | Linus W Frische ♦1,309 | As has been stated multiple times now, it is on the app developers to represent data correctly. Now that the parking lot has been marked as private, there is nothing more that can/should be done in osm. The parking lot will not be deleted. I highly doubt your problem is caused by osm in the first place. They passed a physical, visible sign. They are just coming up with excuses. We should not let these bad people force us to make our map worse. I think you should call the police/other relevant authorities if people park illegally. If you are aware of an app that shows the parking as publically accessable, reach out to the app developers. I am going to close the note now. |