From: Bryan Housel <bhou...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2018 01:12 To: osm-tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes Two issues here. First, the tag is not “transit:lanes” the tag is “transit” and it can be used with the generalized “:lanes” suffix. There are general rules for the :lanes suffix which can be added to pretty much any tag you would have on a highway were the value could be different for different lanes. See <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes It’s the same with e.g. “turn:lanes” (a “turn” key with the “:lanes” suffix) or “access:lanes” (a “access” key with the “:lanes” suffix). .. none of this matters because the tag can’t go on a way anyhow. It matters very much, as the person was proposing to use a lanes:something tag to tag information that is clearly belonging into a xxxx:lanes tag (as it will has to provide per lane information, following exactly the same rules as any other :lanes tags) Second, the “transition” tag is already in use: <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/transition> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/transition Now, as far as I can tell, these are pretty much all transition=yes tags on power=tower or power=pole nodes. These seem to be left-overs from a previous tagging scheme, which has been replaced by the use of the location:transition=yes tag (and at 342 vs 13388 uses that seems to have been well accepted by now). So I guess it might be possible to coordinated with people that are involved in power mapping to have these remaining ones retagged to free up the transition key. The type=transition value is currently unused, so in that regard the change would be fine. Ok, so add a new type of relation and call it `type=lane_transition` https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation you are mixing relation type and the tag used to describe the transition here. type=transition has 0 uses and there is no problem using it. There are currently 342 transition=* tags being used (for something totally different), but they all should be location:transition tags anyway by now as far as I can tell. I agree that this tag when used on ways is problematic from an editor perspective. Though by following pretty simple rules, the editor could prevent the transit(ion):lanes tag on a way from breaking: Maybe seems simple to you, but I’m not going to do it, and the JOSM and Vespucci folks have also already said no too. As I said, if you have proper editor support for transitions so that people don’t have to fiddle around with manually creating relations, then there is no need for transit(ion) tags on ways. If such editor support is missing and the quick and simple tagging on the ways is eliminated, then it’s going to be DOA because nobody is going to be crazy enough to create all these relations by hand.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
