2012/10/29 Ole Nielsen :
> Here is a simple proposal that avoids confusion with the existing access
> restrictions.
>
> special_use_lanes = no | no | hgv
>
> (or "special_use:lanes = .." to be consistent with other lanes tags)
>
> Values can be 'no' (no special limitations apply to this lane), 'hgv
* Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
> > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of
> > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to
> > me.
>
> It doesn't sound sane to
> * Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]:
>
> I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I
> suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference
> numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would
> primarily be interested in
I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging
styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle.
In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the rightmost
lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV and HGV can use all three
lanes) the tagging
Am 30.10.2012 21:09, schrieb Johan C:
I believe there is a solution, which is consistent to current tagging
styles and which complies to the Keep It Simple & Smart principle.
In the situation of a motorway with three lanes, of which the
rightmost lane is forbidden for motorvehicles (and PSV an
