And yet, literally *no* applications support lane values without being included in the lane count.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:51 AM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed one to > > start with. Up there with defining routes as a ref=* tag on > > constituent ways, and yet, route relations are a thing with the need > > for tagging ref=* waning. The idea that this is an unfixible problem is > > short sighted. > > The decision to not redefine the meaning of lanes=* was a deliberate one > made in the original :lanes proposal: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag > > The discussion is here > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#Relevance_of.2Frelationship_to_lanes_key > > I'm not surprised. It is hard enough to get a proposal up, just try > getting one up that proposes to redefine lanes=*. > > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging