Hi! 2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly <[email protected]>:
> Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes > within the lanes:-Tagging > > lanes=3 > lanes:forward=2 > lanes:backward=1 > access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency > access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency > To me it just does not feel right. I don't see a "lane" there... > All together I am not happy with the description of lanes=* and > lanes:*=* anymore. Where is it useful as we already do not count bicycle > lanes but do count exclusive bus or taxi lanes and even ones with access > forbidden but wide enough for motorized vehicles. > The key lanes and its subkeys are a misconception par excellence, no doubt there. > Would prefer to change lanes=* and lanes:*=* to be the numbers with > general access allowed and adding all additional lanes with access:lanes: > I'm all in! Changing the meaning of a key that's used about 5 million times might get a little tricky though. > lanes=2 > lanes:forward=1 > lanes:backward=1 > I wouldn't use lanes=2 in this example. 1+1=2 access:lanes:forward=yes|no|no > access:lanes:backward=yes|no > bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated|no > bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes > bus:lanes:forward=yes|no|designated > bus:lanes:backward=yes|designated > taxi:lanes:backward=yes|yes > That's an excellent example why the current access scheme sucks for this. traffic_designation:lanes:forward=none|bicycle|bus traffic_designation:lanes:backward=none|bicycle;taxi Wouldn't that be A LOT easier? Best regards, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
