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
Thanks, Minh. Yes, there is no way to indicate an order of precedence
between relations. But I also do not understand yet why this should be
needed. It would be sufficient to have one relation per 'turn', i.e. for
any combination of members with role from/via/to there would be one
relation.
Yes, sounds good to me :+1:
One more interesting case I found is this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10344810
restriction=no_right_turn
restriction:bicycle=give_way
But what is that supposed to mean? There are only two (2) such relations
with restriction and
Yes, maybe one problem is that it isn't clear if restriction:vehicle
overrules restriction+except. I like your idea of not using the except
tag but rather something like restriction:value=unrestricted. Actually
that would be the first useful combination of restriction and
restriction:vehicle
For example this:
restriction=only_left_turn
except=bicycle;moped;psv;motorcar;
restriction:hgv:only_right_turn
would be a contradiction. The first two tags tell us that everything
except those listed by except (=hgv) should only turn left, the third
tag tells us that hgv should only turn
Currently there are two ways to limit the vehicle types a relation
tagged as `type=restriction` (turn restriction) affects. The first one
enables the restriction for *all* vehicle types, but then excludes some,
like:
restriction=no_left_turn
except=bicycle
The second one lists the vehicles
