[Tagging] Breakdown bays?
lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Sun Mar 1 16:03:12 UTC 2015
Am 27.02.2015 um 22:44 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> 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
> To me it just does not feel right. I don't see a "lane" there...
Do you mean you see a difference between bay and lane or are both no
lanes at all.
>> 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.
First, I need more information which software uses this tag atm and how
it is used/spread across the globe. Not sure how far lanes:-tagging is
spead so far either. Needs a separate thread.
> I wouldn't use lanes=2 in this example. 1+1=2
The wiki says to use lanes=* and at least one of lanes:backward/forward=*.
I usually add all if not 1+1=2 where only lanes=2 is needed but as
demonstration I tried to be exact as possible and rather include
> That's an excellent example why the current access scheme sucks for this.
Would work in this case.
Not the same, see below.
> Wouldn't that be A LOT easier?
But not fit real world as we loose the different access tags per mode.
Above example has a bus lane (blue sign) where taxi and bicycle is
allowed (additional white sign "frei").
More information about the Tagging