I'm not sure why we are wasting any time on discussing possible changes to the definition of the lanes tag her.
The tag goes back to pretty much the start of OSM and is in widespread usage. Any change in definition that fundamentally changes what value goes into the key given a specific situation is basically impossible at this point. Otherwise you end up with a mix of tags where the value means one thing and where the value means another thing, with no way to distinguish the two, making the tag completely useless. The lanes tag is what it is, which is essential "if you show picture of the street to your average person (which has nothing to do with OSM), how many lanes would that person say the picture shows". The lanes=x tag has its definition of what a lane is _for purpose of this tag_. That definition has remained and will remain unchanged. The :lanes suffix has its definition of what a lane is _for purpose of this tag_. That definition has remained and will remain unchanged. The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. That's fine. They don't have to be the same. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 17:58 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes > > If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to > your non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that > picture ? > At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings > on the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do > not know how it is defined in other countries. From what Thorsen > wrote in this thread, I think it's the same in Australia. > > m. > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
