[Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by baloo at ursamundi.org:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de> wrote:
>
> On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel
> > <jan at mueschelsoft.de
> > <mailto:jan at mueschelsoft.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> >      > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
> >      > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly
> >     corrects
> >      > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the
> other.
> >
> >     The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as
> > lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's
> > time to reconsider that.
>
> I'm refering to the proposal of exactly this: the :lanes extension. It
> was clearly and unambiguously taken into account:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag
>
>
> That specific anchor says it's completely sidestepping the issue while
> highlighting the shortcoming of lanes=* as it stands now.  We need to fix
> lanes=* to mean all lanes.  This isn't a hard change to make
>
> It would redefine widely used tag.
>

So what?  How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct
choices that are objectively bad in retrospect?  Especially when fixing the
problem makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and easier
for new people to understand and map in the long term?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201212/e034a940/attachment.htm>