1.d4 is tactical and 1.e4 positional

I find it amusing that many people say that 1.e4 leads to "wild" tactical positions whereas 1.d4 leads to "boring" games! Being a frequent 1.d4 and 1.e4 player, I feel precisely the opposite is true. In 1.e4, when there are lot of open files and diagonals, pieces need to be placed carefully thus requiring strategic understanding. Manoeuvre is more prominent, acc to me, in 1.e4

In 1.d4, there are lots of tactical opportunites as the pieces are placed in good squares in the opening itself and the positional play is rich which invites tactical opportunities.

Am I wrong in my opinion? Please answer

Sure. Thank you a lot for your insight. However, you could have been more polite in your answer! 

My question to you is: What openings for white TEND lead to tactical positions?

I have my own homecooked theory on those opening moves. Regardless of which one you choose, knowing BOTH 1. d4 and 1. e4 openings will make you the stronger player at the end of the line.

I hear lots of people saying that memorising openings doesn't take you far, and yet many masters play their opening out of sheer memory. They know exactly what to play against any odd response and they avoid traps that the old masters already analysed

Memorising opening saves you time and makes you enter the middlegame faster. But will I give me the time that's needed for that ? God knows.

The opening serves 1 purpose - to get to a playable middlegame.  Play the position, not the opening "theory"  Any opening can be positional/tactical.  I dont understand why beginners want to label themselves "tactical"..."positional" Just play the game.  Chess involves you and an opponent.  If you want a game that involves only you, and what you want to do, then take up a 1 player game. 

Well, I simply answered bluntly because it's the truth.  I'm not going to massage it to make it sound like I agree with either side of the argument when both sides are wrong.

There is no "opening for White" that tends to lead to tactical positions.  There are openings that tend to lead to tactical positions, but openings are played by both players.

1.e4 doesn't "tend to be tactial" or "positional".  It's just not enough detail.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6, you have more information.  This is a Najdorf Sicilian.  In the Najdorf Sicilian, 6.Be2 and 6.g3 TEND TO BE more positional than 6.Bg5 or 6.Be3.

When people say that 1.e4 tends to be tactical and 1.d4 tends to be positional, or that the Najdorf tends to be tactical and the Caro-Kann tends to be positional, all that those statements really mean is that after 1.e4, if you took every game played that started 1.e4, ever, let's say that's 5 billion games (including amateur games), that if you had to use one word to describe each game, and your choice of words were "Positional" and "Tactical", that "Tactical" would be the answer for at least 2,500,000,001 of them.

Otherwise, move 1 by White is not enough information.

And even at later moves, you can't conclude 100%.  Take the Exchange Ruy.  They claim the exchange ruy tends to be positional, and in 4 of the 5 main lines by Black, it is, but the 5th line is not.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O and now:

5...f6 typically leads to a positonal game
5...Bd6 typically leads to a positional game
5...Qd6 typically leads to a positional game
5...Ne7 Black surrenders a pawn for accelerated development.  This is a more agressive line than the first 3, but still tends to be positional in nature, just with more agression by Black.
5...Bg4 typical leads to a more wild game

So as a player that plays the Exchange Ruy, you could try to mark me as a positional player, but I don't as the Exchange Ruy is simply a variation of an opening that leads to positions that I understand, and they can be positional or tactical, and White does not make that decision alone!