Talk:Key:width:lanes:forward

What is the benefit of adding the direction

Is there any benefit of tagging :forward and :backward separately?

To me it seems like there are no upsides to Key:*:lanes (that also explicitly lists the width as an example) and the separate tagging has the downside of being a bit confusing on first sight:

forward/backward could also mean the direction that is driven, as it is for other uses of the forward/backward postfix e.g. maxspeed:forward=*. This of course makes no sense for the width tag and it's clear on second thought, but why use something that could potentially be interpreted wrongly if there are no benefits?

Personally, I would be for discouraging the use of this tag.

-- Pbnoxious (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's consistency with other *:lanes=*

• turn:lanes=* : The turning movement don't look sensible together
• change:lanes=* : The side prohibiting change depends on the direction

Then it's readability, and maintainability. The JOSM lanes styles probably already supports this.
—— Kovposch (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

7639 ~= 90% width:lanes=* are on oneway=yes . "both variants are used" is unclear.
—— Kovposch (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree on the consistency with other *:lanes=*: Your examples all are for cases where the direction actually matters. The width of a lane is the same regardless of the direction.

But after reading the original Proposal:Lanes_General_Extension I'm seeing that tagging forward & backward seperatly for both-direction ways is actually intended there, and as this is an actually democratically voted proposal, I think it's reasonable to suggest the same here. My main cause is to resolve inconsistencies and find a concensus that is documented in the wiki.

We should then also make clear on (at least) Key:*:lanes that this is only for oneway ways and :forward & :backward should be used for both-direction ways

—— Pbnoxious (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)