On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de> wrote: > Thanks for the link. > > I agree for „lanes=*“. > > > > But “*:lanes=*” is still a different story. One could also use “*:lanes=*” > on segregated foot- and cycleways. For example > > highway=path > > degregated=yes > > bicycle=designated > > bicycle:lanes=yes|no > > foot=designated > > foot:lanes=no|yes > > > > Although this example is pretty trivial. >
Trivial, sure, though there could theoretically be (and Tulsa has had plans on paper that I don't expect to see light in reality for a long time to come, but good to know they're planning for future volume) multilane divided and segregated paths, so..there's that. There's also instances on-street in some places with multiple bicycle lanes of travel in one direction, and bicycle specific turn lanes, so a lot of the same routing issues that come up for motorists in regards to lane position also come up in reality for today's cyclists.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
