[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri May 11 15:40:15 UTC 2018
On Fri, May 11, 2018, 01:56 <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
> > From: Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44
> > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only
> > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps
> > because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium ) define
> > them that way. So people started using the tag that way and data
> > consumers started writing software depending on that definition.
> > Perhaps it would have been better to count cycle lanes as well,
> > but we did not. For me, this means that with a tag as popular
> > as lanes, we cannot alter the definition later on. It would mean
> > that we have to retag a lot of objects and that tagging habits
> > have to change. Furthermore, the tag would be useless for data
> > consumers until we declare all lanes-tags to be updated to the
> > new definition.
> THAT is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The definition of the
> lanes tag predates the introduction of the :lanes suffix by many years. It
> has always been defined as "number of full width lanes for motorized
> traffic. Given then widespread use of this tag it's basically impossible to
> simply change it's definition.
Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even the
Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior
approach comes around.
> Furthermore, I do not know anyone that, when shown this picture:
> and asked, "is that a 2 lane or a 4 lane street" would say that it's a 4
> lane street.
That is a four lane street, the curb lanes are obviously bike lanes, even
without scrolling back to the intersection thanks to the shoulderline along
tbe curb and the narrow lane width.
> Nobody I know would tell me that is a 3 lane road.
Correct, hard shoulder.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging