Ok, sure, as far as I am concerned it doesn't have to be `unrestricted`
and could just as well be `none` or `no`.
But at least there seems to be consensus that
a) The `except` tag could/should be replaced with such a
`no/none/unrestricted` value for the `restricted:` key
b) Using `restriction:` and `restriction` for the same relation should
be discouraged except for using `restriction:xyz=no/none/unrestricted`
?
On 01.11.22 19:03, Minh Nguyen wrote:
I do like this idea for its elegance. I goofed up above, intending to
add both except:network and except:network:wikidata, but you get the
gist. Perhaps "unrestricted" could be simplified to just "none" for
consistency with maxweight:*=none, which has been suggested for
representing some weight restriction exceptions signposted in the U.S. [1]
This restriction:*=unrestricted idea would probably need to be paired
with except=* usage for some time, just in case. Turn restrictions are
so critical to routing that we should be very careful about introducing
a new representation for exceptions. Back when 2013 when the
type=restriction:* and day/hour_on/off syntaxes were deprecated, there
wasn't any appreciable usage of turn restrictions for routing yet, but
now there are a lot of users who rely on turn restrictions, especially
in complex environments like the ones we're discussing.
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2428787#United_States
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
