[Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Sep 16 22:32:00 UTC 2020


On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM Fran├žois Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if
> they want to?
> The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an
> error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags.
>

No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly.  It's actually
encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by
automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be
ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this
lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't
painted on the ground"), or access defaults (such as in the US where
bicycle=* and foot=* varies a lot on highway=motorway)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200916/b7e93405/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list