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

Vào lúc 00:23 2022-11-06, easbar.m...@posteo.net đã viết: 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

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

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

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

Vào lúc 00:02 2022-11-01, easbar.m...@posteo.net đã viết: 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

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

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.

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

Vào lúc 01:07 2022-10-29, Tobias Knerr đã viết: On 29.10.22 07:13 easbar.m...@posteo.net wrote: 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 that

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

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

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

On 29.10.22 07:13 easbar.m...@posteo.net wrote: 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 that I have heard of. But unfortunately this is

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

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

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

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

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

On 28.10.22 22:06 easbar.m...@posteo.net wrote: Quite obviously this isn't ideal and as far as I can tell this is the exact reason we have the two approaches (one for excluding vehicles and another for including them). Historically, I'd say the reason we have two approaches is that the

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

Le 28.10.22 à 22:06, easbar.m...@posteo.net a écrit : Is there any reason not to do this? it look like you said that you should use only one access tag on a object and I don't understand why I hope router understand restriction tags like access tag : the more specific overwrite the more

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

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