> The much more relevant precedent are existing attempts to tag lanes. One > example is indeed lanes:forward/backward. But there are other examples for > existing lane tagging which are also documented on the wiki, and used more > frequently than your example according to taginfo: > > ~ 11.500 cycleway:left/right > ~ 10.000 footway=left/right, 22.000 if you count "both" (same proposal) > ~ 4.500 footway:left/right/both:*
As far as I understand, those are ways next to the carriageway. >> I also think that we should clearly separate those approaches: >> backward/forward for the directions of the ways/lanes and right/left >> for anything next to the ways. This would be consistent. At least in >> my opinion. > > > My suggestion for separating the approaches is: > * Physical placement of things relative to road centerline: left/right. > * Legal restrictions depending on driving direction: forward/backward. And this would be a complete show stopper. What you suggest is to tag one property with :left/:right and another with :forward/:backward. So for example: cycleway:lanes:right=no|no|lane maxspeed:lanes:forward=80|50| The same lanes and different suffixes. Sorry, but something like this I can simply never support. It is completely inconsistent and extremely error-prone. > But I have another question: Do you use :forward/:backward strictly as > * "forward" = right of the central divider/lane(s) if right-hand traffic > * "backward" = left of the central divider/lane(s) if right-hand traffic > * "forward" = left of the central divider/lane(s) if left-hand traffic > * "backward" = right of the central divider/lane(s) if left-hand traffic > ? > > Or would it be possible for hypothetical weird road layouts that the two are > mixed somehow, i.e. that there is a "backward" lane between two "forward" > lanes? I use it exactly the way as it is used right now. Usually this means: right-hand-traffic: backward | forward left-hand-traffic: forward | backward In case of lanes running in both directions (like center lanes) this is extended to: right-hand-traffic: backward | both-ways | forward left-hand-traffic: forward | both-ways | backward Note: both-ways is not used at the moment. It is a suggested extension - see below. > Because if you technically allow mixing of lanes, rather than enforcing a > clear split between 2 parts of the road (or 2+1 with center lanes), > renderers can't determine the lane arrangement *even if* they know about the > local left-hand/right-hand rule. In case of mixed lanes this would be tagged like this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension/ProposalPreVoting#Difficult_lane_layout This part is excluded from the voting, as I am not 100% satisfied with it currently. Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
