[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat May 12 11:04:18 UTC 2018
2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:
> 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.
Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about
"car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be
counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle
lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements /
sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes
available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for
a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of
the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short
one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag
definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the
template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in
the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me).
Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage
Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are
marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway
are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging