Re: [Tagging] Places admin boundaries
2012/10/28 Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it 1) Polygon vs point for Populated urban areas (place=city, town...): Hello, we talked about this problem in Italian list [1]. We agreed that boundaries and places should not be confused because in general they refer to different things. We also agreed that tagging the urban area with landuse=residential is wrong in most cases because the urban area comprehends also commercial and industrial zones. We concluded that to maintain compatibility with places tagged only on the central node, it would be appropriate to maintain the tag place=* on the node and to tag the urban area polygon with a new tag. We created a new proposal for urban area tagging [2]: any advice is appreciated. I've reviewed Sylvain's notes in the Talk page, and I hope I've addressed them in a satisfying manner. I've also added more detail to the proposal. Ciao, Simone [1] http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tag-place-ridondanti-td5727924.html#a5729470 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com How would I go about formalizing this proposal? Do I need to make a proposal page? I'm not trying to add a feature, just to expand on one. Since I've received no replies, I'll proceed to add the access value for the enforcement key in the Enforcement Relation's wiki page. For the sake of fairness, I'll add a note to the Talk page, and I'll wait a couple of days before moving it to the main page. As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal? Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Hi! I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. What I mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm not sure about the meaning of access=hgv: is this a valid tag? What is its meaning? I am aware of the combination access=no and xxx=yes, but I'm looking for a nicer solution. The background of my question is the following demand: specify that the rightmost lane (of three lanes) can only be accessed by psv and hgv. Right now I only know this solution: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like this: somenicekey:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv If access=hgv means that only hgv are allowed, I could use that. But as I wrote: I'm not sure if this tag is valid and if it is I am not sure about its meaning. Any hints/comments/recommendations? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC advertising
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or sticked on it) like we do for buildings and shops or whatever is inside. As said on the wiki, it is overlapping with similar objects tagging, like flagpoles (2791 in taginfo) or billboards (855 + 33) which are not necessarely advertising. This advertising should be always a subkey where the primary key is the support. Otherwise you will keep the confusion that sometimes it's a subkey (eg. flagpole) and sometimes not. Also, one parameter for billboards regulation is the size but also the elevation (at least in my country), which is missing on the wiki. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal? Have a look at this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance It is already in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance#values So maybe it would be better to tag the device with the surveilance key and use the node with role device in the enforcement relation. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Try to see it from a data consumer point of view. Let's say you are a bicycle routing engine and want to know if you are allowed to drive here. With the current scheme you see an access = no. so you assume you don't have access. Then you look if there are special permissions for bikes (because, after all, you are a bike routing engine) and find nothing like bicycle=yes. So you know what to do: deny access. With you proposal, you'll find no access = no (just a valid highway tag). So you assume you are allowed there. There is no other key for bikes. So how do you know bikes are not allowed? You'll have to check every possible transportation mode, if maybe one of them has EXCLUSIVE access to this stretch of road. Maybe psv? Maybe hasmat? Who knows.. If you group this under a general key like exclusive_access= psv, you'll at least have a chance (if something is listed, but it's not bike, then deny access). But you'll have to look for it for every d*** road there is, not just those with access = no. So in my opinion, there is no way around first specifying the general case (access = no) and then the special case (psv=yes). Regards, Chaos 2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. What I mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm not sure about the meaning of access=hgv: is this a valid tag? What is its meaning? I am aware of the combination access=no and xxx=yes, but I'm looking for a nicer solution. The background of my question is the following demand: specify that the rightmost lane (of three lanes) can only be accessed by psv and hgv. Right now I only know this solution: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like this: somenicekey:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv If access=hgv means that only hgv are allowed, I could use that. But as I wrote: I'm not sure if this tag is valid and if it is I am not sure about its meaning. Any hints/comments/recommendations? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal? Have a look at this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance It is already in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance#values So maybe it would be better to tag the device with the surveilance key and use the node with role device in the enforcement relation. In this case, surveillance=public. Ok. Thanks, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC advertising
2012/10/29 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like this tag proposal. i think we should clearly separate the support (wall, flag, board) and the function (what is painted or sticked on it) like we do for buildings and shops or whatever is inside. As said on the wiki, it is overlapping with similar objects tagging, like flagpoles (2791 in taginfo) or billboards (855 + 33) which are not necessarely advertising. This advertising should be always a subkey where the primary key is the support. Otherwise you will keep the confusion that sometimes it's a subkey (eg. flagpole) and sometimes not. Actually I don't see this subkey vs mainkey-problem. There can be objects with more than one main key without being a real problem. You might also use advertising as an attribute (advertising=yes). There are already 1269 advertising=billboard in the database (my guess is based on this proposal) while the man_made=billboard (is this what you are refering to above, right?) is marked obsolete http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Billboard and seems to be an almost duplication of the advertising proposal (so I agree that it is obsolete). When thinking about the key, please also consider importance. How many people do want all those advertising features in their db? Using an own key will make it much easier to filter this out, compared to the situation if we used man_made or even amenity for these. In the case of a flagpole it isn't necessarily a subkey, it is describing an advertising flag, while a flagpole is a pole (and could have a flag attached or even not), but I am not insisting on this. My main values are sign, column, billboard and screen and maybe wall_painting (because there are some nice historic ones), the rest is fine for me, but I don't care much (i.e. sculpture, flag) because they don't apply to the areas I map (AFAIR they were added on suggestion from other mappers or they added them themselves). Also, one parameter for billboards regulation is the size but also the elevation (at least in my country), which is missing on the wiki. The size is not missing (there is a suggestion to add height and width) and of course you could add ele as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: In this case, surveillance=public. Ok. Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype And there's also your camera :-) Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. Right now I only know this solution: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like this: somenicekey:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv basically what would be needed for your prosal to work is changing the default from access=yes to access=no and all applications additionally would have to evaluate these multivalue-values (both, those separated by | and those separated by ; ). IMHO this is not a desirable direction to move to. What is the problem with using 3 tags to tag the situation for 3 access-modes (vehicle, psv, hgv)? It is much more transparent. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
On 10/29/12 7:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: basically what would be needed for your prosal to work is changing the default from access=yes to access=no and all applications additionally would have to evaluate these multivalue-values (both, those separated by | and those separated by ; ). IMHO this is not a desirable direction to move to. i think this is understated. such a massive change is almost certain to fail. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: In this case, surveillance=public. Ok. Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype And there's also your camera :-) There is a proposal for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance maybe in some cases you could also use barrier:video from this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Hi! what about this: access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is it explicit forbidden to use the road? This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag. Better is this: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv Masi P.S.: Ok, this works too, if NOTHING is allowed on the buslane, except bus hgv: access:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv Am 29.10.2012, 11:35 Uhr, schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. What I mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm not sure about the meaning of access=hgv: is this a valid tag? What is its meaning? I am aware of the combination access=no and xxx=yes, but I'm looking for a nicer solution. The background of my question is the following demand: specify that the rightmost lane (of three lanes) can only be accessed by psv and hgv. Right now I only know this solution: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like this: somenicekey:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv If access=hgv means that only hgv are allowed, I could use that. But as I wrote: I'm not sure if this tag is valid and if it is I am not sure about its meaning. Any hints/comments/recommendations? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
People - really! Where did I propose to change any tags at all? I asked a question! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Masi, thank you for understanding my question. 2012/10/29 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de: Hi! what about this: access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't think it is documented in the wiki in this way. And if it is valid, does it really mean PSV and nothing else? But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is it explicit forbidden to use the road? That's exactly my question. This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag. I'll never used it before neither. Better is this: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv It is not the way it is documented in the wiki nor used this way. Have a look at taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/vehicle#values vehicle=psv is used 43 times in the whole world. I doubt this is supported anywhere. So I guess there is no way using the access key or the transportation mode keys to express an exclusive access. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules
As the key surveillance is obviously defacto approved we should write a proper documentation for it and link it to the proposal for the extension. And as the extension seems to be used also maybe we should also update the status and write a documentation. Any volunteers? Martin 2012/10/29 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: In this case, surveillance=public. Ok. Not (yet) documented, but used: surveilance:type http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surveillance%3Atype And there's also your camera :-) There is a proposal for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance maybe in some cases you could also use barrier:video from this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more differentiated, it is probably important whether you go in canoe or with a big freight ship, this should be discussed with the marine mappers how it would be best done). Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on. In particular, a bridge might be an obstacle to the way passing under it (if it's a low one, or has a narrow arch) or to the way passing over it (by being narrow from parapet to parapet). But this shouldn't be a problem if the object tagged as obstacle is a way rather than a node. What would be the best way to tag a low bridge carrying a canal over a river, for example? (I'm pretty sure there are some examples of this.) Tag a short section of the river as obstacle, where it passes under the bridge? __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Hi Martin. Nobody said you did. What has been said is that if you want to have some kind of exclusice access tag that in fact is a change to how the access tagging currently works. Access tagging currently is: -use access=yes|no to set a default -add more details by adding access tags for any other modes of transportation etc. So it's quite easy to tag an exclusive access for e.g. psv: access=no, psv=yes, and the default for access is common to be yes usually. What you propose is in fact a change of this in the data consumers view. You propose to have instead the possibility to tag exclusive_access=psv or something like that. With that data consumers have to know your exclusive tag on top of the others, as now exclusive_access=psv would be a more or less short for access=no, psv=yes. Data consumers who don't know or implement this will fail here, because they will use access=yes as their default fallback as usual, and don't know about exclusive_access=*, so they interpret it as generally accessibly by all. To fix that, in fact data consumers would have to change their default to access=no, and that's where you don't change an existing tag, but change how a set of tags together has to be interpreted to be usual - while on the other hand it's only one tag more to do it in a more data user friendly way. regards Peter Am 29.10.2012 12:40, schrieb Martin Vonwald: People - really! Where did I propose to change any tags at all? I asked a question! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:59 +, John Sturdy wrote: On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more differentiated, it is probably important whether you go in canoe or with a big freight ship, this should be discussed with the marine mappers how it would be best done). Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on. In particular, a bridge might be an obstacle to the way passing under it (if it's a low one, or has a narrow arch) or to the way passing over it (by being narrow from parapet to parapet). But this shouldn't be a problem if the object tagged as obstacle is a way rather than a node. What would be the best way to tag a low bridge carrying a canal over a river, for example? (I'm pretty sure there are some examples of this.) Tag a short section of the river as obstacle, where it passes under the bridge? The nornal way is to tag each way with the restriction placed on it. Where the way passes beneath a bridge, that way is usually tagged with maxheight, maybe maxwidth. An example is here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171499475 Some place a node with the same restriction under the bridge. I cannot think of an example of a bridge with a restriction on both ways, an overbridge is likely to use maxweight and/or maxwidth. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] (tagging) RFC Advertising
Am 28/ott/2012 um 15:32 schrieb Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is: In Iceland we sometimes have companies parking cars in public spaces or in private land after making a deal with the owner. The cars are marked with the company and almost always have advertising signs on the side. How would that be marked in your proposal? They are currently not contemplated, and I also am not sure if they should be added. The ones that I know of are of too less permanence to be worth being added. If they were parked for a very long time it would be no problem to add something or maybe use sign for them. Cheers, Martin Martin Svavar,Ive seen large trucks with ads in the USA, but in the Netherlands its, according to landscape rules, forbidden to post ads in the open area in anyway. Large poles with ads are situated in or near industrial areas or close by roads. Even the governamental ads regarding traffic safety along highways are of limit in wide open areas. A rural area (city) has by local law more space for permission.Hendrik End of Tagging Digest, Vol 37, Issue 62 *** ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
On 29.10.2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote: Masi, thank you for understanding my question. 2012/10/29 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de: Hi! what about this: access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv That is exactly what I'm not sure of. Is access=psv valid? I don't think it is documented in the wiki in this way. And if it is valid, does it really mean PSV and nothing else? It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key, whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only appear in the value. For the groups of users, it actually gives exclusive access rights to that group. I can imagine changing this if we find a nice definition. Of course applications would not be compatible with that at first, but mappers could simply refrain from using it excessively and limit the use to lanes and similar cases where compatibility doesn't matter as much. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle
2012/10/29 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com: Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on. it is clear: it will be tagged on the way it refers to. If two ways have a node in common, you shouldn't tag the obstacle applying only to one way on this crossing node but be more precise. If you tagged the node in common it would apply to both ways. In particular, a bridge might be an obstacle to the way passing under it (if it's a low one, or has a narrow arch) or to the way passing over it (by being narrow from parapet to parapet). But this shouldn't be a problem if the object tagged as obstacle is a way rather than a node. What would be the best way to tag a low bridge carrying a canal over a river, for example? (I'm pretty sure there are some examples of this.) Tag a short section of the river as obstacle, where it passes under the bridge? +1, that's how it would be done. Basically there is no particular problem with this tag here, it is just the same as other barrier-tags or maxheight for instance. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key, whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only appear in the value. For the groups of users, it actually gives exclusive access rights to that group. That's how I understand it. Thanks for the confirmation. I can imagine changing this if we find a nice definition. Of course applications would not be compatible with that at first, but mappers could simply refrain from using it excessively and limit the use to lanes and similar cases where compatibility doesn't matter as much. I'm afraid that we wouldn't get app-support for this. On the other hand if mappers are forced to use a lot of tags simply to specify what kind of vehicles are allowed for each lane, I believe most mappers will just forget about it. It's not worth the hassle especially as in the beginning no apps would support it. And as no-one maps it then why should apps support it? That's one of the drawbacks of the consumer-centered view: create theoretically perfect tagging schemes that are wonderfully easy to process - and so hard to map that there's no need to implement the processing because no one is using the scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de: It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key, whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only appear in the value. For the groups of users, it actually gives exclusive access rights to that group. That's how I understand it. Thanks for the confirmation. I can imagine changing this if we find a nice definition. Of course applications would not be compatible with that at first, but mappers could simply refrain from using it excessively and limit the use to lanes and similar cases where compatibility doesn't matter as much. I'm afraid that we wouldn't get app-support for this. On the other hand if mappers are forced to use a lot of tags simply to specify what kind of vehicles are allowed for each lane, I believe most mappers will just forget about it. It's not worth the hassle especially as in the beginning no apps would support it. And as no-one maps it then why should apps support it? That's one of the drawbacks of the consumer-centered view: create theoretically perfect tagging schemes that are wonderfully easy to process - and so hard to map that there's no need to implement the processing because no one is using the scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle Here is a simple proposal that avoids confusion with the existing access restrictions. special_use_lanes = no | no | hgv (or special_use:lanes = .. to be consistent with other lanes tags) Values can be 'no' (no special limitations apply to this lane), 'hgv', 'psv', 'hov' etc. special_use_lanes is just a suggestion, other words not making an association to access could also be used. Other ideas: special_lanes, exclusive_use_lanes Would this be a useful way forward? Ole / polderrunner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
