Tom Pfeifer said: >What Martin means is, it depends on physical separation. If the lane is physically separated e.g. by >a barrier being at least a kerb, highway=service + service=* is fine. If not, the lane tagging comes >in, and we have an established tagging style for lane properties. ————————————————- I see no requirement that service ways like I'm modeling be physically separated by some sort of barrier. I have mapped hundreds of service roads that have no physical separation from the highways they intersect, abut, or run parallel to. The Wiki defines service roads in general terms only and it seems like these turnouts would fit into the Wiki definition.
SelfishSeahorse raises a point about different definitions of "slow moving" then asks whether it should be our problem. No, it isn't nor is it important for this discussion. Dave On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM SelfishSeahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving > vehicle). Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch > climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated. > > This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is > defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France > or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the > USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
