On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission >>> of bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems >>> for lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes. >>> >> >> All three of them will become problems if you have your way. Almost >> every other mapper, apart from yourself, does not >> see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees >> "lanes" as meaning car lanes only. >> > > > Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't > think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about > "car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be > counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle > lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements / > sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes > available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for > a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of > the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short > one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag > definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the > template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in > the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me). > > Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage > lanes? > Very well put, Martin.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
