On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote:
No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't painted on the ground")
Pedantic: wouldn't "you can't turn from this lane" be correctly specified as turn:lanes=through? As I understand turn:lanes, "none" would be "you can't use this lane". (Also pedantically speaking, a blank value would mean there are no specific markings. I think the only ambiguity here is that it's unclear if the tag is simply missing — in which case the truth on the ground could be *anything* — or if there are no markings. Sort of like how a missing oneway could mean oneway=no, or could mean oneway but not tagged.)
(Incidentally, I tend to add oneway=no whenever possible... or at least I did in iD, which made it easy. I can't recall now how well I've been keeping that up with JOSM.)
-- Matthew _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
