I haven’t been able to find any guidance on this subject. When marking access isles (Particularly in the US), should I bring it to the parking aisle as seen in the top left, or would it be better to end it at the end of the paint, as seen on the bottom?
I agree. The access aisle is sort of a path to get to the accessible parking spot, but it’s also a way to and from the parking aisle e.g. to access the rear of the vehicle or continue to other spots (in larger lots access aisles can connect through multiple parking aisles). Routing is always helpful, so I’d connect them.
This question has surrounded footway=access_aisle almost from the day it got approved. Extending a footway to the parking aisle centerline is essential for routing, which is the whole point of this feature type. But tagging it all as an access aisle could get unintuitive for any renderer that visually distinguishes between access aisles and unmarked crossings.
Back in early 2020, we discussed this in Slack and @Glassman also pointed to link ways of some sort as a compromise between rendering and routing needs. I tag it all as an access aisle anyways because this is a pretty minor concern at the scale that I normally map. Now that we have a better-designed road_marking=* tagging scheme, I’d imagine there’s theoretically less need for the little link way because a renderer could choose to render the markings instead.