About 98% of all
…:left, etc.) have currently values that are valid and documented.
I am currently sifting through the 2% rest in an effort to see whether there are any that make sense and should maybe be documented as in-use. After all, 2% are still over 30000 values.
Most of these are indeed garbage, i.e. ambiguous values such as
share_sidewalk, … obsolete values that are probably synonymous to valid values or tag combinations such as
soft_lane and troll tags such as
However, the most-used undocumented value (after the obsolete and ambiguous
(… to which the undocumented value
unmarked_lane is maybe synonymous?).
Together, they have about 12000 usages (0.45%).
It is pretty clear what the value is used for: That cyclists use the shoulder / breakdown lane in absence of an explicitly marked lane. (In many legislations, cycle lanes are actually described as shoulders specifically reserved for cyclists.)
Now, there is duplication with the (ill-defined)
shoulder tag the same way as with the
sidewalk value. But unlike the
sidewalk value1, it is not ambiguous, because if there were a sign that cyclists must use the shoulder, then it would simply be a
lane. So, directly has some utility.
So, I don’t know. In particular, I wonder if that value should be supported in StreetComplete or marked as an invalid value. What do you think?
- Verifiability issue about whether it is usable and allowed for cyclists to use. Just add
cycleway=laneto every paved
shoulder=yesif there is no other cycle infrastructure??
shoulderkey is badly defined, or at least, in a way that it is not useful for cycling tagging:
shoulder=yescould actually have a gravel surface (according to wiki), rendering it unusable for cyclists
- as defined in the wiki, if the shoulder is not broad enough for a car it’s
shoulder=no. However, a narrow shoulder is already useful for cyclists
- Duplication: We already have another value that refers to another tag,
share_busway. Also, e.g.
parking:lane=shoulderwhich also refers to the
shouldertag. So duplication is not necessarily a no-go per se.
1 because it is not clear whether that sidewalk is a non-segregated cycle- and footway (
cycleway=track + cycleway:segregated=no) or whether it is a sidewalk where cyclists are merely allowed (
cycleway=no + sidewalk=both + sidewalk:bicycle=yes)