Talk:Overspill parking

Bias
This article is really hard to read, and is somewhat biased towards the US and cars. For example, blaming the owners/authorities for not accomodating the volume of traffic or managing demand, when the underlying cause is unrealistic expectations from whoever drives to the destinations "There will be somewhere for me to park", or social acceptability "there's nowhere for me to park but on the pavement in front of this school"

I propose
 * 1) Some photos of normal weekday parking in an EU city. I have some france ones which show that country views most of the city as acceptable to park.
 * 2) Some photos of abnormal event parking -such as for a football/soccer match
 * 3) Some photos of normal schoolrun parking in an EU city

The other challenge is editing the prose. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I adjusted the content some time back to respond to some of the above. My recent edits were however challenged (with some justification of swinging the balance too far the other way). I suggest we now work to create a suitable balance, but not by removing notable content. Personally I would welcome contributions that add the opposing view (the provision of overspill parking), but not edits that just remove details of anti-social parking. PeterEastern (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Convenience store image caption
Please do not edit this section which records the discussion up to the point when PeterEastern added a neutrality tag to the article - see below for details The legend on the image was adjusted on the base that the claim of 'inconvenient' was personal opinion. I disagree for the following reasons:PeterEastern (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The car are parking on a pavement which is for the use of pedestrians
 * 2) The cars are parked on a section of pavement opposite double yellow lines which means 'no waiting at any time' (even on the pavement) in the UK and which also has 'no-loading' ticks which means you shouldn't even stop to load a vehicle.
 * 3) There is a access ramp visible outside to the store to help wheel-chair users
 * 4) There are a number of load-bay doors in the image, some with pedestrian access and one with a sign which probably reads 'do-not obstruct'
 * 5) It can been seen from the image that this parking would be very disruptive to wheel-chair users, the blind, people with shopping etc
 * But how do we know it is "inconveniencing pedestrians and other users"? The two silver cars look to be (by the surface colour change) parked on private land in front of some sort of industrial unit or warehouse.  The shop ramp isn't blocked.  Without a reference it is only your personal opinion (see WP:OR). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can't agree about whether the cars in the picture cause 'inconvenience' or not then we are not going to agree on a lot of things! For the record the legend does not say 'blocked', is only says that they are making is inconvenient ie 'Not suited to one's comfort, purpose, or needs; not convenient; troublesome, awkward, or difficult etc'. The silver cars are indeed further back and may possibly only be obstructing the loading bays but the other two are most clearly across the majority of the public pavement. TIf you are still unconvinced then please put the effort into sourcing and incorporating a better one which shows cars parked inconveniently and which you can be 'prove' to your satisfaction to being inconvenient. PeterEastern (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that, with no supporting reference and based upon what we can see, and what we know about the circumstances, that the caption should be changed to: "Parking in front of commercial premises in Ipswich". It isn't clear whether the parking is actually illegal (is it private land?), there's no parking apparent outside the actual shop, and no pedestrians or "other users" are being obviously inconvenienced.  Keep it to what we can all see without introducing personal opinion and conjecture. -- de Facto (talk). 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are certainly persistent. I still disagree and I have now linked to the double yellow line article from the legend on the image and have clarified to rules relating to pavement parking in that article. PeterEastern (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the land in front of the commercial property private and not actually part of the highway? Are any of the cars displaying blue badges?  Are the cars parked outside of the no waitng times stipulated on an adjacent sign?  Are there any other circumstances which render the parking legal?  We cannot know.  I suggest sticking to what we do know - or providing a robust reference to support the assertions, especially the one of illegality. -- de Facto (talk). 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The regulations apply 24 hours a day and there are no seasonal variations in the town. The picture was taken at 11am on a monday morning (see date-stamp on photo) and the shop is busy and buses serve the road so there are other users of the pavement. The first two cars are clearly blocking the majority of the normal pavement width which will be owned by the council. PeterEastern (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the two silver cars on private land or on part of the highway? Are any of the cars displaying blue badges?  And another: are any of the car users engaged in 'loading' activities?  We need to be certain about all of these things. -- de Facto (talk). 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your movitation for this sustained attack on this photo? Your current proposal would be that the legend would read 'Parking in front of commercial premises in Ipswich' which would be entirely missing the point. Your relentlessly pursuit about whether this photo would be sufficient for a prosecution is therefore missing the bigger point. However, I believe the evidence is clear, so let's proceed with your other question because I think it is important to have a lead photo for this subject that addresses the issue of inconvenience:
 * 1) Firstly, the silver cars are not parked as inconveniently as the others, however regardless of the status of the back portion you will however notice that one wheel of each of the silver cars is on the surface that is closer to the road so technically would be 'parked on the pavement on a double yellow line' anyway.
 * 2) And the other two cars? They are clearly on the pavement. Do you agree that these cars are on the pavement and illegal (unless they have a disabled permit)
 * 3) Regarding the issue of disabled parking permits, I, the photographer am able to vouch for the fact that they didn't because I always check before taking such pictures.
 * 4) Loading - you will see that the Highway Code is very clear on this. Loading is 'taking the items to and from the vehicle' but does not cover packing, unpacking or assembly and stopping for a conversation. Stopping to go to the toilet is also not covered'. There is no one 'taking items to and from the car' and the doors are shut. I can again vouch for the fact that there was no evidence of loading. I would note at this point that you removed the definition of loading and details of the meaning of the kerb marks from the Double yellow lines article yesterday which I had added as part of a clean up process following your attack of this image.. I have since added the content back and justified my action on the basis of notability to that article regardless of this issue.
 * 5) Interestingly enough Google Streetview caught a car on the pavement in the same place late last year and the picture clearly shows a that it is not displaying a parking permit, and usefully also has an old lady walking to the shop. If you spin round there are other people on the pavement, one with shopping and another has a young child who is in a buggy.. PeterEastern  (talk • contribs)  08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My only 'motivation' is to comply with Wiki policy by avoiding OR and purely personal opinion. Assertions such as yours of illegality need to be verifiable from reliable references - see WP:VER.  I'm not attacking the photo, just the caption.  You say my proposed caption misses the point - what is the point?  Perhaps you need a photo which clearly shows the point you want to make.  All I can see in the photo are cars parked outside some sort of commercial premises.  They aren't parked outside a shop, although there is one further along the street.  I see no evidence of any pedestrians, let alone any being inconvenienced.  The two cars closest to the camera may make it awkward for pedestrians to use the footway, but there is a dropped kerb, and not knowing what's behind the dark car I couldn't say whether they would want to go around it or not.  I also see a bicycle parked on the shop ramp, which may cause inconvenience to people going in and out of the shop.  I don't know if any of the car users are helping a passenger to or from their car, or whether they are struggling to or fro with a large package out-of-shot.  In short, putting anything in the caption, other than what is clearly apparent from the image, can only be personal opinion if there are no supporting cites.  (Please take any discussion you wish to engage in on the Double-yellow line article to its talk page.) -- de Facto (talk). 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, I see you wrote: "... I, the photographer am able to vouch for the fact that they didn't [have blue badges] because I always check before taking such pictures."! Do you make a habit of taking pictures of cars parked on footways?  Do you have another agenda here?  Are you a member of, or in some way associated with a group or organisation that campaigns against some sort of 'overspill parking' somewhere? -- de Facto (talk). 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you need to know is available from my user page, my talk page and my contributions. Yes I am a pedestrian and yes I am annoyed by people parking on the pavement; I also use trains and drive they also have their faults. I contribute widely to Wikipedia mainly about transport issues.PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No conflicts of interest then. -- de Facto (talk). 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about you? Your User page tells me nothing. Your contributions tell me that you are pretty interested in cars and your talk page tells me that you have got into a number of conflicts and were banned for a period under WP:3RR. I notice that you are doing nothing on Wikipedia for the past few days other that pursue this issue. Personally I suggest we let it rest here and get on with other more productive activities. PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly interested in engineering, transport and its history, road politics, road safety, vehicle manufacturing industry and its history. I have started dozens and contributed to hundreds of Wiki articles.  I haven't had much Wiki time recently, but look in occasionally and tend to home-in on a single article that attracts my attention (and sometimes articles at the other end of links or being worked on by the same editors).  I'm motivated to react to, what in my opinion(!) appears to be, the suppression of inconvenient truths, OR or of personal POV-pushing.  Unfortunately my bold editing can sometimes lead to disagreements.  People sometimes resent having their soapbox toppled, or their bias neutralised! -- de Facto (talk). 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly you should use the description above as a starting point for creating a helpful User Page. Looking back through your edits do you consider that adding the words 'a public transport industry funded anti-car pressure group' to a article that mention the Campaign for Better Transport (UK) was NPOV? (I then changed it to 'a public transport advocacy group' which seems more neutral)? You then removed a bunch of official statistics of traffic casualties from Road Casualties Great Britain citing NPOV and OR, and then removed similar content from Speed limits (including a reference to a major report by the World Health Organisation on the subject) saying it was 'OR or unrelated to speed limits' leaving that article with hardly a reference to traffic casualties. Given your clear enthusiasm for motorcars could you please provide examples of where you have pushed vigorously for changes that are not in favour of the motorcar or do you seek balance by defending the car?PeterEastern (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the inclusion of reliably sourced, but embarassing facts with a non-neutral POV and don't forget that opinions of a relationship between certain statistics and certain events need to be verifiable opinions from a reliable source - not just one's personal opinions. These notions are enshrined in key Wikipedia policies. -- de Facto (talk). 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And on that note; I still believe the picture caption needs modifying to reflect what can be reliably and verifiably supported. We have no incontrovertible evidence that the parking in the picture is illegal or inconveniencing anyone.  There is nothing parked outside the shop. -- de Facto (talk). 22:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone prepared to listen to the facts I believe that there is sufficient evidence for both assertions. Tell you what... in light of all of the above I suggest that we leave the caption exactly as it is for 14 days. If in that period there are not other voices in support of your proposed change to 'Parking in front of commercial premises in Ipswich' then I suggest we will leave it as it is.PeterEastern (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What 'facts'? Any 'facts', especially if challenged, need to be supported by reliable sources.  Currently we have no reliable source that the parking is: a) illegal (just your supposition) or b) inconveniencing anyone (just the theoretical possibility that it might).  We can see from the picture that nothing is actually parked outside the shop; so that's simply incorrect.  I'll correct the caption to what is indisputable, and consensus can add to that. -- de Facto (talk). 14:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up! I have added a neutrality tag to revision to this version of the article. See neutrality section below for details. Please do not edit this section which contains the extensive discussion prior this point. PeterEastern (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is this article about?
This article is currently giving a confused message. Is overspill parking a good thing or a bad thing? The lead suggests that "formal" overspill parking may be provided for certain events - this is surely a good thing. But then the next section is titled "The problem" and the next one "Control measures".

As I see it, overspill parking is simply parking beyond what had originally been planned and provided for, but it isn't necessarily bad and isn't necessarily a problem, so doesn't necessarily need control measures. I think the article is currently putting a biased slant on the subject.

May I suggest that the article is adjusted to give a balanced view, with perhaps 'responsible overspill parking' being given equal weight to 'problem overspill parking'. -- de Facto (talk). 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that better? I have rearranged the sections and adjusted the lead. With reference to 'balance' the UK parliament report does indicate that it is a big problem but that is not a reason to have implied bias in the headings.PeterEastern (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag (March 2010)
I have just added a Neutrality tag to this version of the article. The discussion that led up to the tag is covered in the 'Convenience store image caption' section of this page. I am also now going to ask for arbitration and do not intend to make any further edits to the article until the issue is resolved. I added the tag because despite extensive discussion the caption has been changed without agreement; also because of extensive edits which have re-introduced the bias (as described in the 'Bias' section above). My justification for the earlier caption and approach to the article are already expressed above.PeterEastern (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have added the tag questioning the neutrality of the whole article because of the current wording of the image caption - or because of my latest edits?
 * If the latter then please explain your reasoning; what is now non-neutral that was neutral before, etc.
 * -- de Facto (talk). 20:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will respond in the 3rd opinion section below.PeterEastern (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we remove the neutrality tag now? As the person who put the tag on I believe that the issues have been addressed; there are still minor points of contention but thanks to further work and new input from Jim (thanks Jim) it seems that the article has settled down in a much more mature and balanced form. I will remove the tag in about 48 hours unless anyone objects assuming that the article itself isn't changed considerably in emphasis in the intervening period. PeterEastern (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just rationalised it a bit, and balanced a couple of sections. It looks good to me now. -- de Facto (talk). 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - I will removed the neutrality tag then. See below for comments about the new heading structure which seems to be a step backwards. There are other small issues to be discussed but generally I think the article is pretty fair now. PeterEastern (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for 3rd opinion
DeFacto, would you be prepared to refer the issue above for a Third opinion. If so then we should describe the dispute clearly in this section, if not then this form of dispute resolution is probably not suitable. See FAQ. PeterEastern (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the issues are. Is it just the image caption, or something more? -- de Facto (talk). 20:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it is more. See Bias section at the top of this talk page with which I completely agree. It reads "For example, blaming the owners/authorities for not accommodating the volume of traffic or managing demand, when the underlying cause is unrealistic expectations from whoever drives to the destinations that 'there will be somewhere for me to park', or social acceptability of 'there's nowhere for me to park but on the pavement in front of this school'. You have just added back exactly those sentiments. For example:
 * 1) You say: Problem overspill parking can be more pronounced in areas where transport authorities deliberately restrict the provision of spaces for political reasons. The implication therefore is that there is no underlying justification for restricting parking
 * 2) You say" Repairing of damage may be neglected (due to cost for example) and authorities may face compensation claims for injuries received resulting from damaged or defective pavements. This implies that it is the authority's fault for not repairing the damage to the sidewalks/pavements and that they should build them to be able to be used for parking cars.
 * 3) You say: the introduction of charges for parking or the restriction of parking to some limited classes of users can lead to those whose parking requirements conflict with the regulations having to find altrernative places to park The word 'having' in their implies again that it is the authorities fault that the drivers park on verges and pavements.
 * 4) And finally the caption: You say Overspill parking (possibly illegal) on double yellow lines near a convenience store, and on its access ramp, in Ipswich UK which could potentially inconvenience other pavement users I have patiently try to demonstrate to you that it is a 24 hour loading ban which means that if you walk away from the car you are in violation. I have demonstrated that is it next to a busy shop (a number of people caught on camera when google streetview came past which also caught a car without a disabled permit in the window conveniently). I try to avoid having people in shots I on Wikipedia unlesss it is necessary. How can it possibly not be inconvenient to someone in a wheelchair or who is blind or who has children?
 * 5) In summary you are promoting a rather myopic car-centric view of the world which is POV big time.PeterEastern (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you want a 3rd opinion on stuff we've mostly never discussed! None of that, other than for the image caption, really qualifies for a "3rd opinion" request then, as I understand it.  We can discuss the others items here though if you wish. -- de Facto (talk). 20:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go through those numbered points.
 * I don't say or suggest that there is never a justification for restricting parking in some places at some times. All I'm pointing out is that parking will be displaced by such restrictions.  Are you disagreeing that restrictions lead to 'overspill'?
 * The authorities generally are responsible for highway repairs. Structures should surely be specified and constructed to withstand reasonably likely use.  I know, and you know, so presumably the authorities know, where it is likely that vehicles, including road sweepers, delivery vans, council vans, Royal Mail vans, ambulances as well as 'normal' cars, will park from time to time.  Are you disagreeing that the authorities are responsible for repair and/or that they should provide structures suitable for reasonably predictable use patterns?
 * The same as number 1 really. Charges lead to parking displacement (overspill).  Some overspill is problematic.  Do you disagree?
 * The point about the caption is that it has to comply with Wiki policy. If what is written isn't verifiable from reliable published sources then it contravenes policy.  It's simple - if you provide a reliable published source that allows readers to verify what you write then it will be acceptable - otherwise it won't be.  Do you believe that this caption is exempt from Wiki policy?
 * There is nothing car-centric in what I wrote. In fact I deliberately removed all use of that word, which I thought was non-neutral - replacing it with the more generic 'vehicle'.  We aren't only talking cars here, we're talking all vehicle types (indeed we see a bike parked on the shop wheelchair access ramp in your photo).
 * -- de Facto (talk). 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the above summarises the problem very well. I say I am complying with policy and am being neutral and that you are being pushing a 'driver-centric', and you say you are not and that I am not complying with policy - that is the issue. You put the text 'get the ball rolling' in the last edit summary; does that mean you want me to put the request in for a 3rd party? PeterEastern (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two issues again here. Let's separate them.  The first is the one of the image caption.  The second is your objection to my latest tidy-up and attempt to remove the car-centric emphasis that was creaping in.  As I understand it a request for a 3rd opinion should only be used when agreement cannot be reached.  That seems to be the case for the first issue, but not for the second.  So, by all means, take the first issue - but hang on with th second until we've thrashed it out here.  I'll start a new section for it below. -- de Facto (talk). 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised there's an article here at all, much less a medium sized one. I mean, overspill is when someone goes to park and the space is already occupied, so instead of departing, they park elsewhere. I've never owned a car, but sometimes the bicycle stands are full, so I overspill my bicycle to a lampost or fence or something, so yes, I understand this fairly simple concept. Sometimes the alternative parking space is authorized, in which case there's little reason for it to be in the encyclopedia, and sometimes it is unauthorized, for which we already have an article parking violation. Questions may remain of whether or when overspill is a bad thing, and if bad, for whom is it bad, and is bad overspill sometimes or always someone's fault besides the parker's, and if so, whose. If such questions need coverage in a separate overspill article, it should be a brief one that addresses those questions directly. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That you for your comments. The reason I started working on is it partly because there was a 'Bias' comment and also because it is a key element and issue in places where more people try to drive into an area to than can possibly be accommodated on the roads or at the destination. For sure one bunch of people say 'I will drive into town and find somewhere to park (... and it may be illegal but I will get away with it)', another bunch may say 'I won't drive into town because there will probably be nowhere to park - I will either go another way or not go at all', some local residents think 'I wish these commuters wouldn't drive into my area and park on my nice verge and mess it up'. The police and authorities think 'How can we possibly control this - everyone gets so angry and the place is a mess'. Policy makers think 'how can we discourage people from driving into an area when there is neither the road space on the approach roads which are really congested, I know we will put our efforts into public transport and put maximum standards onto parking rather than minimum'. As such it is actually the lightning rod for a whole bunch of issues and has drawn out a conflict which we need to now resolve. I will add some background links to the article. It would be great if you could get your head around this and be the 3rd party were talking about. Do you have some time for that? PeterEastern (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article direction
Should this article be about overspill parking in general or specifically about overspill parking only involving cars? I believe that under the current title it should be generic - hence my recent changes. -- de Facto (talk). 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Far as I see, the version of this moment handles that question properly, with a general definition but then discussing cars almost exclusively, because that's the only kind that gets much attention, at least in the part of the world where I'm paying attention. A look through my edit record can hint that I put more time into Wikipictures than words, so I prefer to work articles that won't burn time, such as those that are otherwise edited only a few times per month, not day.  Quick and easy to carp, criticize and complain at length but concision, precision, disputation, compromise and relevance all require much thought, thus time.  With today's beautiful weather I am about to unfold the bike and spend my afternoon photographing the North Shore, Staten Island, so won't much more time writing.  I was going to say something about the relations of this article with broader questions of enforcement (apparently other parts of the world are much more lax than my part) and especially the connection with NIMBY conservatism, but now at the keyboard I see that I haven't thought them out properly yet.  Anyway, under the heading of more easily said than done, this article needs more and better connections to and from other articles, and fewer words of its own.  Oh, and I like the Moscow picture better than the previous ones.  TTFN.  Jim.henderson (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim, I hope you had a good trip out and we appreciate your engagement. New York would provide a useful perspective on the issue given the massive parking pressure in a dense area. Car parking should be covered effectively in the article as it is the biggest challenge and it is only car parking (and commercial vehicles etc) for which the level of parking provision is heavily controlled by the planning process in some places and causes controversy and friction. I can however think of the places in Cambridge (UK) where parked bikes are a problem and sometimes spill almost all the way across the pavements and would be worthy of a section and a photo at some point. PeterEastern (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way; flattery and bribery including putting my old Greenwich Village pic into Sidewalk. Ah, what a day was Sunday for an overaged railfan; I finished with aching muscles, sunburn, sore wrist from losing my footing on a slippery slope, bleeding legs from thorns, dehydrated, and many pictures though mostly not the sought ones. Life is beautiful. Then to reality with Google Earth broken and my new GPS reader not yet working and too many of my 5,540 watchlisted articles seeking attention. 45 years after the summer I spent teaching FORTRAN I still hate computers and don't understand them. Tonight a little more online time became open so I can say a bit here. Yes, overspilled bikes have attracted some public exasperation in Manhattan and in Park Slope; a bit of Googling will probably find a relevant ref to go with a pic from England or anywhere. No overspill for me; last night at a restaurant in Jersey City I parked tbe bike under the table. Goodness; Wikipedia has scads of parking articles. I won't worry about which ones ought to die; just try linking them from, and maybe to, this article and trimming some of the overlap. I hate the word "problematic" and will replace it in a few places; several paragraphs also say too much or at least use too many words to say it. "Overspill" is also overused, sometimes as an imprecise synomym for "illegal" or "unauthorized". There's maybe too little, on the other hand, about the urban planning and zoning authorities, and what there is, is somewhat POV and not enough Wikilinked. The contrasting pair "chronic" and "acute" could be profitably employed in some paragraphs.

I'll find time tonight or tomorrow for some of this but most my online time in the next couple days will go to handling pictures, mostly of central and western Brooklyn. (Abandoned police station; hooray!) Prospect is good for more time for more online reading and writing next weekend (boo-hoo; can't go out and scramble through brambles seeking abandoned rail lines and stations). Jim.henderson (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'flattery and bribery' was completely by chance! I have been working my way through loads of 'highway' related articles and was looking for any good photos for the sidewalk article which was woefully short of appropriate images and came across you Greenwich Village one, but I don't remember that I ever clicked the link to the photo page itself and certainly didn't know it was yours! Thanks for the work on the lead - I have done some more work on it, do please respond if you are able to. PeterEastern (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, you say you hate the word 'problematic'. Is it the negative connotation that you dislike or just the word?  Please elaborate.  We know that inconsiderate overspill may cause problems for some people - so we do need to discuss it.  we should, of course, balance that with discussion of perfectly acceptable overspill parking, including, possibly, pavement/sidewalk/verge/ parking where it does not cause any problems and even where it is officially sanctioned. -- de Facto (talk). 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to careful to stick to a neutral POV. Overspill parking isn't all bad, and has many and varied causes. I've just made a few adjustments to address this. -- de Facto (talk). 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your contributions seem to nearly always ooze POV. Please could you rework the 'Causes' section which implies that drivers 'have' to park elsewhere which is POV as they could equally not bring there vehicle into the area - when you say 'elsewhere' I assume that you mean 'on the verge/pavement etc', if so please say so; also, I recommend we avoid the phrase 'politically restricted' which to me is a weasel phrase and implies something unnecessary, I have proposed the phrase 'consciously restricted' which I see as being more neutral. Finally.. Jim has proposed that the work 'problematic' is not used; can you find a better title than 'Problematic overspill parking'?PeterEastern (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We all have our personal POVs and that isn't the problem. The problem is balancing the notable points of view in the article.  Overspill parking isn't, by definition, a bad thing.  Overspill parking has many causes and many ways of dealing with it.  We need to avoid applying a one-sided interpretation onto the topic and allow all sides to be fairly represented. The actual 'cause' is too many cars for too few spaces.  There may be too many cars for a variety of reasons.  There may be too few spaces for a variety of reasons.  We should attempt to discuss all reasons and not unduly push one or another. 'Elsewhere' doesn't necessarily mean on the verges or on the pavements - it may be simply places further afield.  The consequences may be simply that parkers have to walk further.  In some situations problems may result if inconsiderate parking results.  We should not imply or suggest that all overspill parking is inconsiderate parking or that all overspill parking causes problems. Recent parking policies have been politically motivated (some might say they are unnecessarily restrictive), why not say it? Peter, do you also have trouble with the word 'problematic'?  If so, is it because of its negative connotations - or what - please elaborate? -- de Facto (talk). 08:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been some progress since my last visit. The list of reasons why an official parking space may be bad, which I unwisely extended, has been trimmed. Good work. The word "political" is no longer in the lead. Also good; it didn't belong there since that's not the place for an explanation, but perhaps it can become useful with a proper explanation in one of the sections. Sheesh; yes I like catering to my own prejudices but more important issues than the long yet vague word "problematic" remain. There aren't enough links, for example, to Double parking and other illegal parking articles or they are not placed where they can best instruct. Most important, I don't get the feeling that the two related meanings of the term "overspill" are sufficiently distinguished. It's somewhat like "Webcam" which has both an operational and a mercantile meaning though that article does a fairly decent job of distinguishing them, with most paragraphs being clearly about one or the other. "Overspill" can mean "second choice" parking, and illegal parking. One is not a subset or variety of the other; rather the two phenomena can be observed both separately and overlapped. Then there are the questions of causation; I'm more a Donald Shoup follower, accepting the argument that parking spaces, like other commodities, are subject to scarcity and glut, and the answer to either is price adjustment. Anyway, that hobby horse of mine can wait in the stable until the two meanings are more precisely delineated in the various paragraphs that need them. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Heading structure
The current version has been split into a number of very short sections each with one para - sometimes only a few lines. I am sure this violates some rule or other and I don't think it helps. A bunch of summary content has been removed from the lead which I don't think it very helpful. Suggestions welcome! PeterEastern (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current section structure is logical and the headings focus the content. The solution to short (but relevant) sections is to add more (relevant) content.  If you have another structure in mind why not present it here.  The stuff that I removed from the lead was detail which rightly belongs further down the article (where it now is). -- de Facto (talk). 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see little merit in your last edit and I have already offered what I consider to be more appropriate section structures on a number of times. Overall I think there is little benefit to be gained from further work on this article. PeterEastern (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I too think the first few paragraphs are so small that they don't need a TOC listing or header. They should simply be paras of the lead.  If the eye needs a focus point to advertise the purpose of one of the paragraphs, a bolded word early in that paragraph should suffice.  If they later begin growing with more useful, relevant, referenced and unrepetitive material, headers can be supplied.  At the recent rate of growth of such material, it won't happen this year.  What will happen much sooner is, I'll bike out to the rail station in Secaucus, which is a park and ride as well as a transfer station.  Among many quests in that settlement, I'll try to get a picture that clearly explains its normal and second-choice parking.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DeFacto: I notice that you have turned your attention to a disagreement with User:Daniel.Cardenas regarding the car pollution article. I note that there are now two people who prefer the earlier version of this article including the '3rd party' who was brought in to resolve our conflict. Are you planning to increase the content in the small sections? Are you content with bolding the words and adding them back into the lead or how do you propose to respond to the above? PeterEastern (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) There's no "disagreement" as such there. We're evolving a new article by consensus.
 * 2) I didn't see anyone say that they wish to see an earlier version of this article reinstated. What I saw was an opinion that the sections are too short and could be appended to the lead.  I don't think that they should be appended to the lead, but some of them could be merged.
 * 3) I don't recall us making a request for a third opinion. Jim is simply another passing editor making his very welcome contribution here - like you and I.
 * -- de Facto (talk). 17:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right - we were not actually able to agree to request the intervention of a 3rd party, but luckily someone came along anyway and played to role - thanks Jim. And it turns out we are not even able to agree that we disagree! PeterEastern (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They are short - but I think the lead is the wrong place to add detailed content. Perhaps we could merge some of the sections.  We need to keep it clear that overspill is one thing and that problematic overspill is another thing.  Maybe just 2 sections: Causes and forms and Consequences and reaction.  What do you (or anyone else) think? -- de Facto (talk). 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense
Hee-hee; at it again, are we, children? Let's try a little less sincerity. When another editor acts like an idiot, explicitly pointing this out does not necessarily promote harmonious collaboration. For some insults, including example WP:NONSENSE we have official Wikipedia editorial definitions and that's the sense in which they should be used. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the use of 'Nonsense' is probably defendable when the caption of the image was changed to 'leaving ample room for pedestrians to pass safely' - I think it is pretty clear that the pedestrians are being asked to walk much closer to the edge of the path than is wise and that there is not 'ample room'. I note that Nonsense is defined in Wikipedia as 'Partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact' which may or may not be applicable in this case. I did take note of DeFacto's other discrete comment and have removed the potentially libelous previous wording (I do note that another definition of nonsense is 'Libelous, defamatory, or slanderous comments'). I am happy with the current wording if DeFacto - I promise to stop talking nonsense! PeterEastern (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it to be more neutral - "Cars parked on a pavement near a convenience store on double yellow lines (which mean 'no parking or waiting at any time') leaving less room for pedestrians to pass" - perhaps. There's no evidence that anyone was "forced" to do anything and the remaining space is wider than many pavements are with no cars on them.  We must try not to apply spin or non-neutral POV to picture captions as much as to general text content. -- de Facto (talk). 15:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea to separate the clauses that way. I have changed it to "Pedestrians walking close to the carriageway to pass cars parked on the pavement; double yellow lines means 'no parking or waiting at any time' and applies to the road, the pavement and to most vehicles." Yours is a tighter description but is less comprehensive; I am happy with either one, feel free to change it to yours if you prefer it. PeterEastern (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the way. Feign respect and soon we fail to remember why we despise each other, and then I don't have to step in on schoolyard spats.  As for the caption in question, it now says too much.  It explains the difficulty of walking around rather than let the pic speak for itself on this point.  It says "overspill", thus raising the irrelevant and irresolvable ambiguity of whether this was the parker's first choice.  It repeats legal details well covered in the linked article.  Captions should be terse, pointing to explanations for what is explicitly shown (for example I didn't know the double yellow line meant "No parking"), while letting the body of the text handle any details, ambiguities and implications.  Tooting my own horn a bit, I can point out my pictures in Cycling in New York City, including the "door zone" one, as examples of terse yet sufficient captions, amplified as necessary in main text.  Jim.henderson (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Law
It might be notable (and interesting) to know the legal position. I haven't found anything definitive in a quick search, but IIRC "Richard's Bicycle Book, 1972" said that parking on the 'pavement' (footpath beside a public highway = 'sidewalk' for North Americans) is not strictly illegal in UK Law. Driving on the pavement is illegal. However, being parked on the pavement is not regarded as evidence of having driven on the pavement!

Maybe the anomaly has been sorted - I haven't read the 20th Century edition of Richard's Book.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)