[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri May 11 19:48:30 UTC 2018
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of
> bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for
> lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
All three of them will become problems if you have your way. Almost every
other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
"lanes" as meaning car lanes only.
"Hard to fix" isn't an excuse for leaving it wrong now that it's already a
> problem and only going to get worse as more bicycle facilities are built.
As people keep patiently trying to explain to you, it isn't wrong now and
it's not a problem. What would be wrong,
VERY wrong, is your fix to something that isn't currently broken which
would result in it being very broken.
This isn't like Linux where releases are co-ordinated and people can choose
which release of which kernel in
which distro to install/upgrade to without affecting anybody else. This
isn't like yum or apt or some other package
manager knowing that to update X it also has to update Y. This isn't like
adding ESMTP extensions in a
backward-compatible way to SMTP with "EHLO". This is like decreeing that
every mail server in the world
switch from SMTP/ESMTP to incompatible PJMTP (Paul Johnson Mail Transfer
Protocol) but without any
co-ordination whatsoever over a period of decades, so that for the entire
transition period there will be
miscommunication between servers running different protocols.
People keep telling you the correct way to handle a count of cycle lanes
but you keep insisting on a broken
solution. Hint: when everybody else is marching out of step but you, the
problem is with you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging