sent from a phone
> On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised > traffic. I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this inconsistency in the definitions. What would you say about unsigned lanes? This is/was a frequent situation in Rome, where there are basically huge areas of asphalt (2-4 lanes) without lane markings, or only with lane markings before traffic lights (and people not respecting them oftentimes). In recent years they have begun to remove the ambiguity by painting more lanes and adding more “channeling” infrastructure like traffic islands and guards rails, but you can still find a lot of “wild” situations. Would you agree it is ok to estimate a number in the absence of markings, or would you prefer something like width=12 lanes=no (or maybe 1)? e.g. https://www.instantstreetview.com/@41.888713,12.480457,180.97h,-11.28p,1.54z Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
