[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
> lanes?
>

Very well put, Martin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180512/7ac8b0c8/attachment.html>