Proposal talk:Two-stage bicycle turn

Why type=restriction:bicycle?

The proposal (currently) say type=restriction:bicycle + restriction:bicycle=two_stage_turn_box but why not just type=restriction? With restriction:bicycle=* alone is is clear enough that this is for bicycles. -- Emvee (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure! I wanted to say that that's what the French usage of restriction:bicycle=* also used, but as far I as I can see, they suggest use type=restriction + restriction:bicycle=* and also did so when I was writing up this tagging back in 2020.

Possibly I was working by analogy with Toronto's type=restriction:on_red (see No turn on red#restriction:on_red), but if that's the only thing, I don't mind dropping it since as far as I am aware the on_red tag is Toronto-idiosyncratic.

JOSM gives me warnings for type=restriction:bicycle + restriction:bicycle=two_stage_turn_box relations right now, but maybe this is because it doesn't know about this specific restriction:bicycle value? I haven't checked if it also gives warnings for the French restriction:bicycle=give_way.

Thanks for responding! --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

type=* is a feature tag. You shouldn't use colons in them. It should be kept simple and unique for each feature.
Ignore JOSM. It may be warning either the type=* , or restriction:bicycle=* because there is no restriction=* .
Furthermore, you shouldn't use mandatory=* . restriction=* and other limits are already assumed to be regulatory. Rather, you could use restriction:bicycle:advisory=* as in maxspeed:advisory=* for the other case.
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)