Ok so to recap. All fairly weak reasons (except 2) here, but let's find the best tag:
1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative 2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes value if no markings are present (see ael's message). Adding "no" as a possible value that is to be applied when no visual markings are present would make a portion of the currently tagged lanes-tags wrong and thus would be a redefinition of the lanes key. 3. lane_marking=no has of the proposed tags the least semantic similarity to the lanes tag but on the other hand is used a few times already and is safe for the "_" instead of the ":" what Warin suggested 4. lanes:mark...=no would maybe imply that lanes=X must be tagged as well? On 13/06/2019 15:15, Tobias Zwick wrote: >> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation??? > > 1. or lanes:marked=no? (mark_ed_ instead of mark_ing_) > > Would be (more) consistent with the naming of opening_hours:signed, > collection_times:signed, (1k-2k usages each) > > 2. or nolanes=yes? > > Would be consistent with noname=yes, noaddress=yes, ... > > 3. or lane_marking=no? I found this on taginfo, it has 90 usages. Personally, > I like either 1 or 2 better though. > > Point 1 and your (Warin's) suggestion have the advantage that it semantically > refers to the lanes-key. Though on the other hand, would that imply that > lanes=X should always be tagged if lanes:marked=no is tagged? > > Cheers > Tobias > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
