I'm objecting right now and heavily so. There are lots of mappers not continuously reading the mailing list or that are active in other forums, so I do not have to regret that I have not been there in 2017 or 2018.
cycleway:right= and cycleway:left= tags are way older. And no-one thought about using "opposite_lane" as a value at the time of their introduction. This may also explain why you will not find reference that explicitly _excludes_ that value. Because "back in the days" no-one would have ever thought that this may become an issue one day. The wiki was clear in that "lane" and "track" values ought to be used. No-one had written up an exclusion list of values not to use, because no-one had seen the need for such thing. If only two values are documented, you'd expect that only two values are used, would you not? And in the case, that another value ever were added, you'd expect that people would think of the implications, discuss the implications and modify the doc with the same care it originally was written with. Where are the wiki edits in 2017 of 2018 of the wiki, documenting the results of the mailing list discussions back then? Are they limited to placing red links aside limited example pics? cycleway:right and cycleway:left are a lot older: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/search.php?action=search&keywords=cycleway%3Aright&show_as=topics The search returns five pages with a history dating back to May 2008. Use in the db may even still be older than that. Regards, cmuelle8 > On 15/3/19, 09:49, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > you'll find that several mappers suggest using opposite_lane and no-one > objecting to that. > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
