What do you call places for short parking, typically seen along scenic highways and in national parks,
and how would you tag that, assuming it is not viewpoint or emergency_bay?
I would just simply label it as car parking and use the description for what it is.
I map these as amenity=parking, parking=layby (British English for pull over).
Since I’m American, I’ve never heard of layby. Something new I need to remember. Thx.
Thanks for the keyword, that pointed me in the right direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_area#Lay-bys
Looks like parking=layby is in common use (1000+ entries), American terms (turnout, pullout) have zero use.
Thanks!
There is also a long related discussion under parking page - looks like “parking=layby” was proposed in the past, but no agreement was reached: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dparking#Lay-bys:_simple_roadside_parking_for_taking_rests
It’s very much the obvious tag, but sort of conflicts with other uses of parking such as multi-storey or surface. However, I’ve rationalised this in terms that laybys (pull overs etc) are always surface level parking, and therefore it is a logical subclass of surface.
Other types of parking: park & ride, short stay, long stay, shopping, customer etc are not necessarily catered for within the parking classes. This often happens when the subtag acquires a mix of function and form values associated with the main tag.
I was wondering if any resolution had been reached on this. I would like to add a few small pullouts I have noted near trailheads on Vancouver Island. It does not seem as if there is a tag for a pullout or layby - these can be important features of small rural and logging roads here in BC. I am not sure otherwise how to tag such points.
The parking=layby tag is absolutely fine: it’s been in use for years. There’s no ambiguity in meaning. The slight downside is that than the term may be obscure to North Americans, but this works two ways.
I assume parking=street_side + parking:orientation=parallel (with parking:lane:right:parallel=separate) from last year assumes it’s a parking bay. However, the distinction between them seem unclear as to whether they are about a physical or functional property per proposal, when other parking=* and parking:lane=* values are physical.
parking=layby is fine for such short-stop pullovers outside of built-up areas. The tag was misused for street-side parking of the type parking=street_side now covers, but the description in the OP seems like the proper use of parking=layby.
Keep in mind that parking=layby is really for the small roadside stop areas/bays where drivers can rest a bit before moving on. Anything larger that has its own service roads and facilities like those you find next to freeways is more suited to highway=rest_area, where you would usually tag the parking area as parking=surface.
@JeroenHoek: yes that seems reasonable, but there are a few laybys in the UK which do have a distinct service road & which aren’t rest areas. Nearly always these are remnants of the original road layout where a road has been straightened or re-engineered & using the original segment as a layby is a good use. I think a true rest area should have a minimum of some facilities, such as picnic tables and toilets.
However, this is just a classic case where things grade into each other and I would not officiously change a tag because someone else’s judgement differs from mine.
Agreed. I think it’s not too troublesome though. Not everything is clear-cut, and a bit of grey area isn’t harmful in this specific case. The documentation for parking=layby is minimal; I have given it some polish in the course of documenting the parking=street_side proposal after approval, but there is room for improvement.
Good reminder. I’ll have a look too.