[Tagging] The history behind why :lanes doesn't necessarily add up to lanes (Was Re: Green lanes (OT))

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Mar 18 11:22:25 UTC 2019

And yet, literally *no* applications support lane values without being
included in the lane count.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:51 AM Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed one to
> > start with.  Up there with defining routes as a ref=* tag on
> > constituent ways, and yet, route relations are a thing with the need
> > for tagging ref=* waning.  The idea that this is an unfixible problem is
> > short sighted.
> The decision to not redefine the meaning of lanes=* was a deliberate one
> made in the original :lanes proposal:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag
> The discussion is here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#Relevance_of.2Frelationship_to_lanes_key
> I'm not surprised. It is hard enough to get a proposal up, just try
> getting one up that proposes to redefine lanes=*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190318/76875355/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list