[Tagging] Breakdown bays?

Martin Vonwald imagic.osm at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 21:44:08 UTC 2015


2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com>:

> Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes
> within the lanes:-Tagging
> lanes=3
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=1
> access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency
> access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency

To me it just does not feel right. I don't see a "lane" there...

> All together I am not happy with the description of lanes=* and
> lanes:*=* anymore. Where is it useful as we already do not count bicycle
> lanes but do count exclusive bus or taxi lanes and even ones with access
> forbidden but wide enough for motorized vehicles.

The key lanes and its subkeys are a misconception par excellence, no doubt

> Would prefer to change lanes=* and lanes:*=* to be the numbers with
> general access allowed and adding all additional lanes with access:lanes:

I'm all in! Changing the meaning of a key that's used about 5 million times
might get a little tricky though.

> lanes=2
> lanes:forward=1
> lanes:backward=1

I wouldn't use lanes=2 in this example. 1+1=2

> access:lanes:backward=yes|no
> bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated|no
> bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes
> bus:lanes:forward=yes|no|designated
> bus:lanes:backward=yes|designated
> taxi:lanes:backward=yes|yes

That's an excellent example why the current access scheme sucks for this.

Wouldn't that be A LOT easier?

Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150227/19c8834c/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list