Hi!
I agree with you, that abbreviations are usually not a good idea. But
there are two reasons not to change this:
1) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hov
2) If we don't "like" hov we should also not "like" hgv. And I don't
even start thinking about such glorious inventions like access:n2 -
I don't have an opinion about the issue (trust you that we need it).
But does the abbreviation "HOV" make sense? There are good reasons why we avoid
abbreviations in tags.
Wouldn't some relation to "carpool lane" make more sense (in that it is
understood my more people)?
They are always lanes, ar
Hi!
Am 29.03.2013 um 00:15 schrieb Paul Johnson :
> I tend to go with access=no, hov=*, and possibly motorcycle=yes or
> psv=designated, since I've yet to find an HOV road that allows you to walk,
> ski, ride an animal or a bicycle, etc. on it; it literally only allows the
> modes specified.
I tend to go with access=no, hov=*, and possibly motorcycle=yes or
psv=designated, since I've yet to find an HOV road that allows you to walk,
ski, ride an animal or a bicycle, etc. on it; it literally only allows the
modes specified.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
2013/3/28 Martin Vonwald :
> Hi!
>
> I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says "yes
> (also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement
> specified". In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should -
> like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allo
Hi!
I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says "yes
(also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement
specified". In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should -
like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allowed there. The
tag hov=designated shou
