[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

[Ilya Zverev]

> e.g. trunk_turnlanes:left:forward=1 meaning that from this point we 
> have
> a left turning lane till the next intersection with a trunk highway
> ('forward' or 'backward' being relative to the osm way direction as
> usual).

So, are you suggesting to use :forward/backward on nodes? I don't think 
that would go well. It is worse that using relations, since the node is 
implicitly related with a) direction of a way; b) the fact that way is 
not split at that point; c) the highway tag value of some other way far 
ahead.

> As a result, we just add a node for a minor information and do not
> damage the existing highways.

The big problem is that mappers think splitting ways is damaging them. 
Why?

Also, on such level of micromapping (turning lanes are usually several 
meters in length) I guess it is acceptable to work with small ways and 
split them whenever neccessary.


IZ