[Tagging] Using restriction and restriction:vehicle for the same restriction relation should be discouraged

[easbar.mail at posteo.net]

Ok, sure, as far as I am concerned it doesn't have to be `unrestricted` 
and could just as well be `none` or `no`.

But at least there seems to be consensus that
a) The `except` tag could/should be replaced with such a 
`no/none/unrestricted` value for the `restricted:` key
b) Using `restriction:` and `restriction` for the same relation should 
be discouraged except for using `restriction:xyz=no/none/unrestricted`

?

On 01.11.22 19:03, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> 
> I do like this idea for its elegance. I goofed up above, intending to 
> add both except:network and except:network:wikidata, but you get the 
> gist. Perhaps "unrestricted" could be simplified to just "none" for 
> consistency with maxweight:*=none, which has been suggested for 
> representing some weight restriction exceptions signposted in the U.S. [1]
> 
> This restriction:*=unrestricted idea would probably need to be paired 
> with except=* usage for some time, just in case. Turn restrictions are 
> so critical to routing that we should be very careful about introducing 
> a new representation for exceptions. Back when 2013 when the 
> type=restriction:* and day/hour_on/off syntaxes were deprecated, there 
> wasn't any appreciable usage of turn restrictions for routing yet, but 
> now there are a lot of users who rely on turn restrictions, especially 
> in complex environments like the ones we're discussing.
> 
> [1] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2428787#United_States
>