On 26 April 2012 10:30, Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com> wrote: > To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and > currently available here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt > > If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article > tomorrow. >
I suppose I've got a few "major objections", and a few minor *Major problem:* You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. The example given for the 'narrow' road, which you advise should be tagged as lanes=2 looks more like lanes=1 especially as there is a need for a passing place. *Major Problem:* The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The 'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes are present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present. But surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage people not to add the data. highway=path is considered not to be for motor vehicles, but the assumption is correct if the path has been tagged accessible to a type of vehicle. Assumptions for mortorway/trunk need to be clarified because these highways are commonly considered to consist of two carriageways? and mapping guidance has always stated the the carriageways should be mapped as two separate way? I'd simply remove the "4 or more" and leave that box blank. Jason
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
