Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
>> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
>> the example in my last message.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before that you 
> would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping, places where 
> this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is getting to be 
> rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint if not a repave 
> since then).

The states have had considerable leeway in how they mark their own
highways (the Federal government has control only on the highways that
it funds).  New York has used a single solid white line to mean 'lane
crossing discouraged but not prohibited' for the 45 years that I've
been driving here. Prohibited lane crossings have, for at least that
long, been set off by double lines or by partial-barrier lines with
the solid line toward the lane that must not be departed from.

I seem to recall that the meaning of a single solid yellow line has
varied from 'crossing discouraged', to 'crossing forbidden but left
turns permitted', to 'crossing prohibited'. The current drivers'
manual states that they have the same regulatory effect as a double
yellow line. (Left turns across a double yellow are permitted only
when they can be accomplished without impeding traffic in either
direction and only into private driveways, entrances and alleys.) The
only single yellow center lines I've seen in the last couple of
decades have been on private roads, where they mean, 'the owner was
too cheap to shell out for enough paint for standard markings.'

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before that
you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping, places
where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is getting
to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint if not
a repave since then).

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
> the example in my last message.
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red
> dichotomy.  Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data
> specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped.  And the single white
> line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning
> that you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to
> double white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is
> prohibited).
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 13:29 Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> >>
> >> The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing
> lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a
> difference based on markings.
> >>
> >> I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not
> stretch the turn key a bit. Something along
> turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out.
> >>
> >> /Tobi
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> >>
> >> I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be
> the same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes
> shouldn't be counted as lanes: the solid line.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
> >>> that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
> >>> slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
> >>> near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
> >>> overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
> >>> America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
> >>> climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
> >>> have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
> >>> than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
> >>> by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
> >>> lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
> >>> drawing a parallel way?
> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to
> incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
> >>> > If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just
> lanes, not a separate roadway.
> >>> > And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a
> couple of tags
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout <
> daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the
> turnouts on the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is
> too short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier
> other than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario.
> It is simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the
> job better than the lanes technique.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks to all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dave
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse <
> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout <
> daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the
> best solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?
> Here is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a
> turnout on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103,
> -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for clarity:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
> >>> >>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
> >>> >>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway
> way):
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> lanes=2
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> lanes=3
> >>> >>> lanes:forward=2
> >>> >>> lanes:backward=1
> >>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> >>> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> lanes=4
> >>> >>> lanes:forward=2
> >>> >>> lanes:backward=2
> >>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> >>> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
> >>> >>> 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
the example in my last message.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red 
> dichotomy.  Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data 
> specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped.  And the single white 
> line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning that 
> you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to double 
> white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is prohibited).
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 13:29 Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>>
>> The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing lanes/... 
>> have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a difference 
>> based on markings.
>>
>> I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not stretch 
>> the turn key a bit. Something along turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out.
>>
>> /Tobi
>>
>>
>> Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>>
>> I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the 
>> same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be 
>> counted as lanes: the solid line.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
>>> that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
>>> slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
>>> near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
>>> overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
>>> America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
>>> climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
>>> have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
>>> than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
>>> by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
>>> lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
>>> drawing a parallel way?
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to 
>>> > incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
>>> > If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, 
>>> > not a separate roadway.
>>> > And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple 
>>> > of tags
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout  
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>>> >>
>>> >> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on 
>>> >> the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too 
>>> >> short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>>> >>
>>> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other 
>>> >> than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It 
>>> >> is simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the 
>>> >> job better than the lanes technique.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks to all,
>>> >>
>>> >> Dave
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse 
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout  
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best 
>>> >>> > solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  
>>> >>> > Here is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with 
>>> >>> > a turnout on both sides of the road that I've been discussing 
>>> >>> > (59.752103, -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for clarity: 
>>> >>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>>> >>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>>> >>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>>> >>>
>>> >>> lanes=2
>>> >>>
>>> >>> lanes=3
>>> >>> lanes:forward=2
>>> >>> lanes:backward=1
>>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>> >>>
>>> >>> lanes=4
>>> >>> lanes:forward=2
>>> >>> lanes:backward=2
>>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>> >>>
>>> >>> lanes=3
>>> >>> lanes:forward=1
>>> >>> lanes:backward=2
>>> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>> >>>
>>> >>> lanes=2
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>>> >>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards
>>> >>> Markus
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Dave Swarthout

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red 
> dichotomy.  Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data 
> specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped.  And the single white 
> line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning that 
> you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to double 
> white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is prohibited).

For what it's worth, New York appears to have used a double broken
white line to separate climbing lanes. (Source: personal observation
in the field.) The drivers' manual does not discuss this unusual
marking. There is a subtle difference in the signage. The signs read
"SLOWER MOVING TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" for a climbing lane vs "KEEP RIGHT
EXCEPT TO PASS" for a 'normal' multilane road. The implication appears
to be that you don't have to move to the right into a climbing lane if
nobody is overtaking.

The double-broken-white-line convention last appeared in the 2005 NY
State MUTCD. There's a 2015 order
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/TSMI-15-02.pdf
that prohibits the practice, and uses broken, solid, and double white
lines to indicate that lane crossings are permitted, discouraged or
prohibited respectively - in conformance with the federal MUTCD.
Nevertheless, there are a fair number of roads that have not been
restriped and still bear the old double-broken-line convention.
Restriping projects in some cases appear not to have removed the old
paint, giving rise to a broken white line that is unusually wide.
MUTCD permits painting wider lines than standard, for emphasis. New
York uses the wide lines to set off dedicated lanes (HUV lanes,
turning lanes, merge/exit lanes, or lanes committing the driver to one
side of a route split.)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-info/drawings/standard-sheets-us-repository/685-01_082718.pdf

There were also once some lanes that were set off with white
partial-barrier lines (broken and solid line in parallel), which
appeared to allow merging into a climbing lane but forbid leaving one
once committed to it. These are also forbidden under the 2015 order.

A 90%-good solution to all of these combinations is simply to indicate
the number of forward, backward and both_ways lanes. Some of the finer
details fall into "Don't map your local legislation'

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red
dichotomy.  Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data
specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped.  And the single white
line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning
that you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to
double white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is
prohibited).

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 13:29 Tobias Wrede  wrote:

> The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing
> lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a
> difference based on markings.
>
> I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not
> stretch the turn key a bit. Something along
> turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out.
>
> /Tobi
>
>
> Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>
> I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the
> same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be
> counted as lanes: the solid line.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
>> that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
>> slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
>> near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
>> overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
>> America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
>> climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
>> have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
>> than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
>> by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
>> lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
>> drawing a parallel way?
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to
>> incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
>> > If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes,
>> not a separate roadway.
>> > And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple
>> of tags
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout <
>> daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts
>> on the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too
>> short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>> >>
>> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other
>> than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is
>> simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job
>> better than the lanes technique.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to all,
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse <
>> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> >>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
>> solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here
>> is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout
>> on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395
>> ) with the ways removed for clarity:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>> >>>
>> >>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>> >>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>> >>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>> >>>
>> >>> lanes=2
>> >>>
>> >>> lanes=3
>> >>> lanes:forward=2
>> >>> lanes:backward=1
>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>> >>>
>> >>> lanes=4
>> >>> lanes:forward=2
>> >>> lanes:backward=2
>> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>> >>>
>> >>> lanes=3
>> >>> lanes:forward=1
>> >>> lanes:backward=2
>> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>> >>>
>> >>> lanes=2
>> >>>
>> >>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>> >>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Markus
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dave Swarthout
>> >> Homer, Alaska
>> >> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> >> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> >> ___
>> >> Tagging mailing list
>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

I would leave the short passing_place as is, i.e. the one that also 
gives space to pass oncoming traffic. For the ones intended for letting 
same direction traffic pass I would really not differentiate by short 
(what is short?), long or alternating.


/Tobi

Am 08.09.2018 um 02:29 schrieb Warin:
If the short 'passing_place' is tagged the same as a longer lane .. 
then how is it distinguished?


You cannot count on the mapper to mark the length of it every time.
So a 100 meter one could have the same tagging as a 10 meter one. That 
is not good.


I think the present tag of passing_place needs to be retained with the 
present definition.


If the use of the lanes tag or a separate service road tag is not good 
enough for these longer 'turn outs' then there needs to be some new tag.



On 06/09/18 22:56, Tobias Wrede wrote:

Hi,

I've just come back from three weeks vacation in the Sierra Nevada 
with an RV. I've used turnouts there extensively. Mostly, they were 
long enough to me not having to stop while I let the traffic pass. 
But there were also the occasional ones (marked) that were just a 10m 
paved patch next to the normal lane.


In Sweden they have a lot of 2+1 roads and they seem to become 
popular with planners in Germany, too 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2B1_road). Basically, it's a 
permanently alternating long turnout. :-) I would be overshooting to 
explicitly mark every two lane bit as a turnout or passing lane.


I favor the idea of marking turnouts, passing lanes and 2+1 roads all 
the same by using the lanes tagging scheme. For explicit (short) 
turnouts we might want to create a new value for turn:lanes=pass or 
something like that.


Tobi


Am 05.09.2018 um 03:13 schrieb Dave Swarthout:
@Warin, Thanks for clearing up my confusion about passing places. 
These turnouts are definitely not the same. A vehicle should never 
stop in one. They are about 1/4 mile long and some but not all have 
painted lines to separate the highway proper from the turnout lanes. 
In the U.S., where we drive on the right, such lanes are always on 
the right-hand side of the highway, and although they aren't signed 
as one way, it's sensible to include that tag IMO. In practice, a 
slow-moving vehicle turns off the main highway, slows down enough to 
allow following vehicles time to pass on the left, after which it 
returns to the main highway.


Given that the passing_place tag defines the situation you describe, 
and indeed was created to model it, I'm not sure modifying its 
definition to include ways would be a good idea. In addition, the 
term "passing" or, in the EU, "overtaking", implies that the passing 
vehicle does so on the left (U.S.) while these turnouts are always 
on the right. Hence my reluctance to redefine that tag.


Dave

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:55 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 04/09/18 21:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2018-09-04 12:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout
mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>>:


Summarizing recent comments:
Martin wrote:
> what’s wrong with passing place? Seems to describe the same thing

I thought so too until I noticed that the Wiki says
passing_place is used for nodes only, using logic that
escapes me, so I began searching for another method. I also
considered modifying that definition so it includes ways
but was reluctant to start that battle even though that
still seems a good solution.




I would be in favor of adding the possibility to tag
highway=passing_place on ways, there is already a tiny fraction
tagged on ways (although the percentage currently makes it
clear they are outliers). There's a general problem with using
nodes for features like these: they don't have a direction, so
you can't state where the widening takes place.


Passing places are not long.
Most of them are just long enough to squeeze in a car and
caravan ... just.
You are supposed to come to a complete stop to let others pass
in either direction.
They are usually on single lane, two way roads.

So a passing place .. you have to stop in it. You cannot keep
moving as you would with any distance of extra lane.




For the lanes approach: I would only use this if the place has
some length (more than 5-10 meters you may typically find on a
track) AND if there are lane markings (general requirement for
lanes).

Cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing 
lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a 
difference based on markings.


I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not 
stretch the turn key a bit. Something along 
turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out.


/Tobi


Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson:
I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be 
the same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes 
shouldn't be counted as lanes: the solid line.


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny > wrote:


It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
drawing a parallel way?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to
incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
> If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just
lanes, not a separate roadway.
> And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a
couple of tags
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout
mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>>
>> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the
turnouts on the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them
unmapped. Life is too short and there is a lot of other mapping
yet to do in Alaska.
>>
>> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier
other than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road
scenario. It is simple, much, much less error prone to map, and
IMHO, would do the job better than the lanes technique.
>>
>> Thanks to all,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout
mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is
the best solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my
turnouts?  Here is another screen shot of the particular section
of highway with a turnout on both sides of the road that I've been
discussing (59.752103, -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for
clarity:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the
sections as
>>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the
highway way):
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=1
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=4
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=1
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your
idea
>>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make
sense.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the
same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be
counted as lanes: the solid line.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
> that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
> slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
> near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
> overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
> America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
> climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
> have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
> than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
> by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
> lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
> drawing a parallel way?
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to
> incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
> > If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes,
> not a separate roadway.
> > And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple
> of tags
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
> >>
> >> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on
> the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short
> and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
> >>
> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other
> than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is
> simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job
> better than the lanes technique.
> >>
> >> Thanks to all,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse <
> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
> solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here
> is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout
> on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395
> ) with the ways removed for clarity:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
> >>>
> >>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
> >>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
> >>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
> >>>
> >>> lanes=2
> >>>
> >>> lanes=3
> >>> lanes:forward=2
> >>> lanes:backward=1
> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
> >>>
> >>> lanes=4
> >>> lanes:forward=2
> >>> lanes:backward=2
> >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
> >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
> >>>
> >>> lanes=3
> >>> lanes:forward=1
> >>> lanes:backward=2
> >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
> >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
> >>>
> >>> lanes=2
> >>>
> >>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
> >>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Markus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Swarthout
> >> Homer, Alaska
> >> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> >> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
drawing a parallel way?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to incorrectly 
> map them as separate service roads.
> If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, not a 
> separate roadway.
> And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple of 
> tags
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout  
> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>>
>> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on the 
>> Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short and 
>> there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>>
>> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a 
>> painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple, 
>> much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than 
>> the lanes technique.
>>
>> Thanks to all,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout  
>>> wrote:
>>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best 
>>> > solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here 
>>> > is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a 
>>> > turnout on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, 
>>> > -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for clarity: 
>>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=1
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=4
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=1
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to incorrectly
map them as separate service roads.
If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, not
a separate roadway.
And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple of
tags

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>
> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on
> the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short
> and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>
> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than
> a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is
> simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job
> better than the lanes technique.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
>> solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here
>> is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout
>> on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395
>> ) with the ways removed for clarity:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> lanes=3
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=1
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=4
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=2
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=3
>> lanes:forward=1
>> lanes:backward=2
>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>>
>> Regards
>> Markus
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 08:17 Dave Swarthout  wrote:

Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a
> painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple,
> much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than
> the lanes technique.
>

How do you figure?  Imprecise is better than inaccurate.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

You're welcome!

I understand that the lanes method is time-consuming. Alternatively, you
could skip the three lines section as it is rather short. Then you would
just have to split the road way twice and copy-paste the tags. I think this
is even faster than drawing and tagging two additional ways.


On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:15 Dave Swarthout,  wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>
> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on
> the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short
> and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>
> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than
> a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is
> simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job
> better than the lanes technique.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
>> solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here
>> is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout
>> on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395
>> ) with the ways removed for clarity:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> lanes=3
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=1
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=4
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=2
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=3
>> lanes:forward=1
>> lanes:backward=2
>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>>
>> Regards
>> Markus
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.

But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on the
Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short and
there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.

Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a
painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple,
much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than
the lanes technique.

Thanks to all,

Dave

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
> solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here
> is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout
> on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395
> ) with the ways removed for clarity:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>
> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>
> lanes=2
>
> lanes=3
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=1
> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>
> lanes=4
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=2
> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>
> lanes=3
> lanes:forward=1
> lanes:backward=2
> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>
> lanes=2
>
> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best solution 
> but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here is another 
> screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout on both sides 
> of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395 ) with the ways 
> removed for clarity: 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0

I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):

lanes=2

lanes=3
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=1
smv:lanes:forward=|designated
overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no

lanes=4
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=2
smv:lanes:forward=|designated
smv:lanes:backward=|designated
overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no

lanes=3
lanes:forward=1
lanes:backward=2
smv:lanes:backward=|designated
overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no

lanes=2

In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/09/2018 13:53, Johnparis wrote:
I agree that it is theoretically a problem for the software not to use 
access:bicycle=yes (for example) instead of bicycle=yes. I believe 
I've seen (from Thorsten?) a list of such tags, as a hierarchy. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation


Data consumers always have this problem with OSM's free-form tagging. 
I'm not sure the list above is comprehensive.


The wiki doesn't (and shouldn't) document "access:foot" etc. there, but 
the tags that are used of this form can be found at 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=access%3A


Lots in that list don't fit this form; of the ones that do (such as 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3AN3#map ) many are 
presumably local solutions to local problems.


Data consumers can choose to consume "access:blah" if they want provided 
that "blah" is fairly obvious and it's listed in taginfo. This doesn't 
mean that "access:foot" is a "good tag" though.


The current "designated=" list is at 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/designated#values .  Most things 
there probably need retagging on a case-by-case basis; as an example I 
suspect that "designated=footway" on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227007990/history is an orphan from a 
previous use of "access=designated", which someone then "tidied", but 
didn't look at the data that they were changing.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Marc Gemis]

What if there are 2 groups that have designated access (e.g. foot & bicycle) ?
Then we have to start the discussion of the semi-colon separator all
over again, during which someone will propose to move the value back
to the key (or as part of a key). and we end up with
bicycle=designated; foot=designated again (or
access:bicycle=designated;access;foot=designated).

The access:xxx might be a better solution imho.

m.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:12 AM yo paseopor  wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> When I tag the access to a way reading the meaning of the traffic sign I miss 
> some specific conditions. I know I can do it at general times with key 
> access, but in specific cases access is so "small for me". There are also 
> conditional tags but with these two keys I don't arrive to cover local 
> meanings and situations of restriction to some vehicles (example, you have a 
> living street, which is only allowed for the LOCAL bus line, nor the other 
> buses. So you can't tag it with bus=yes or bus=designated within the complete 
> meaning of the restriction given you by the traffic sign.
>
> For these situations I propose to "flip" designated value and convert it to a 
> subkey. In that way you would have an escalable subkey that you can complete 
> with the specific information of that tag. This key will be together with the 
> combination access=designated so you can complete the information of the 
> specific designation
>
> access=designated
> designated=local_bus
>
> designated=bicycle
> designated=motor_vehicle
> designated=pedestrian
> designated=Mo-Fr 9:00-9:30
> designated:en=schoolars only
> designated:ca=Només escoles
> designated:es=Solo escuelas
>
> This also applies for other uses like some restrictions done by "marks" 
> (Example: in a industrial zone you have some private ways...but private of 
> who? In the reality you will have a traffic sign it says you who can pass or 
> who cannot)
> With normal access scheme you would say...repsol_workers=yes but Would it 
> better if I can specify the "specific designation" ?
>
> access=designated
> designated=Repsol workers
>
>
> hey! but you have access tags yes/no to do that! ...And the software has to 
> guess which of the 32 keys with yes=no is for access . For general purposes 
> it's ok. But for an specific case the software can read this designated value.
>
> What do you think?
> Salut i accessos designats (Health and designated access)
> yopaseopor
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Warin]

On 10/09/18 19:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale >:


The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the
UNCLOS rules, and published to the world by deposition with the
UN. The basis for the baseline is: "the normal baseline for
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line
along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially
recognized by the coastal State."
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm





is there also a definition for an "unnormal" or exceptional baseline? 
E.g. here: http://www.nonnodondolo.it/userfiles/image/37(1).gif 

you can see that e.g. the whole gulf of taranto is included by the 
baseline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Taranto
From what I have seen, although there is the UN definition about the 
low water line, actual baselines tend to be much more "generous". The 
baselie is what the country self declares and other countries 
accept/recognize.


Also the 12nmi extension (territorial waters) is not always the same, 
some countries pretend(ed) 200 nautical miles.





Fiji (an island nation) baseline encloses;

Land = 18,272 sq. kilometers

Internal waters = 25,558 sq. kilometers

Archipelagic waters = 130,470 sq. kilometers


I'd think that most people would agree that their baseline is a long way 
from what they would consider a coast line.



https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58567.pdf
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-10 11:34, Colin Smale wrote:

> On 2018-09-10 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 
> 
> 2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
> 
> The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, 
> and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the 
> baseline is: "the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the 
> territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on 
> large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." 
> http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm 
> is there also a definition for an "unnormal" or exceptional baseline? E.g. 
> here: http://www.nonnodondolo.it/userfiles/image/37(1).gif 
> you can see that e.g. the whole gulf of taranto is included by the baseline 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Taranto 
> From what I have seen, although there is the UN definition about the low 
> water line, actual baselines tend to be much more "generous". The baselie is 
> what the country self declares and other countries accept/recognize. 
> Also the 12nmi extension (territorial waters) is not always the same, some 
> countries pretend(ed) 200 nautical miles.

Up to 200nm is the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), that's not the same.
There's a neat explanation and diagram here: 
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-two/ 

The situation with the Gulf of Taranto is that Italy claims it is an
"historic bay" for which the convention indeed makes an exception. What
constitutes an "historic bay" is not defined in the Convention
however...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-10 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
> 
>> The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules, 
>> and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the 
>> baseline is: "the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the 
>> territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on 
>> large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." 
>> http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
> 
> is there also a definition for an "unnormal" or exceptional baseline? E.g. 
> here: http://www.nonnodondolo.it/userfiles/image/37(1).gif 
> you can see that e.g. the whole gulf of taranto is included by the baseline 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Taranto 
> From what I have seen, although there is the UN definition about the low 
> water line, actual baselines tend to be much more "generous". The baselie is 
> what the country self declares and other countries accept/recognize. 
> 
> Also the 12nmi extension (territorial waters) is not always the same, some 
> countries pretend(ed) 200 nautical miles.

Up to 200nm is the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), that's not the same.
There's a neat explanation and diagram here: 

https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-two/___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-10 10:41 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

>
> The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS rules,
> and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis for the
> baseline is: "the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the
> territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on
> large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State."
>
> http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
>



is there also a definition for an "unnormal" or exceptional baseline? E.g.
here: http://www.nonnodondolo.it/userfiles/image/37(1).gif
you can see that e.g. the whole gulf of taranto is included by the baseline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Taranto
>From what I have seen, although there is the UN definition about the low
water line, actual baselines tend to be much more "generous". The baselie
is what the country self declares and other countries accept/recognize.

Also the 12nmi extension (territorial waters) is not always the same, some
countries pretend(ed) 200 nautical miles.


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

>The video is from the 70s, more passing places on more modern S1s are
longer and will not require the vehicle being passed to slow down. If you
time it right it is >common to pass vehicles travelling in the opposite
direction at 60 mph.

So it is in Alaska where my scenario is located. When I'm plugging along in
my RV and there are cars following me, I signal, turn into the turnout lane
and allow those cars to pass me. Sometimes, if the following vehicles
aren't able to pass before I run out of room, I'll either stop for a few
seconds or pull back onto the main highway until the next turnout comes
along.

I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best solution
but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here is another
screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout on both
sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395 ) with
the ways removed for clarity:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 7:39 PM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 12:15, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> > The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the
> start of a new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules
> lents'. There is no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at
> 130 you may come up behind a truck very quickly, there is no indication
> that the standard keep to the right unless overtaking doesn't apply. [...]
>
> The 60 km/h are not indicated on the road sign, but in the 'Code de la
> route' (highway code):
>
>
> https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI06842322=LEGITEXT06074228
>
> The second section is translated into English as follows: 'For the
> purposes of this article, the term slow vehicles refers to vehicles
> that cannot travel at a speed exceeding 60 km/h on the road section in
> question.'
>
> But because our good practice guidelines recommend to not map local
> legislation, this doesn't seem to matter, and smv:lanes=||designated
> should be fine. (I wouldn't even tag smv:lanes=no|yes|designated
> because of the same guideline.)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-10 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>> On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:09, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> The legal definition of the baseline is the low tide line and also cuts 
>> across bays, inlets and estuaries.
> 
> I thought the baseline was generally defined politically/legally. In Italy 
> for example there is a law which contains a long list of points (many with 
> coordinates).

Both are correct. 

The baseline is defined by the state, in accordance with the UNCLOS
rules, and published to the world by deposition with the UN. The basis
for the baseline is: "the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of
the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on
large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 10.09.2018 um 02:27 schrieb André Pirard:
What should I do? building=terrace 
 describes 
mapping separate houses as an *alternative*.

Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses?


That's what I do. You may keep the original outline to keep some history 
but mapping the individual houses (building=house) stores more 
information so should be the preferred way.




While waiting, I converted them to landuse=terraced (invisible).


That on the other had is bad practice in my opinion. The landuse of the 
whole area should be "residential". The terrace does not get an extra 
landuse. Having many building=house sharing walls identifies terraces 
well enough I would say.


cheers, Tobi


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:09, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The legal definition of the baseline is the low tide line and also cuts 
> across bays, inlets and estuaries.


I thought the baseline was generally defined politically/legally. In Italy for 
example there is a law which contains a long list of points (many with 
coordinates).


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Sep 2018, at 09:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> For an individual dwelling, we have building=house. For the entire row as a 
> single building, building=terrace_of_houses might be better, or otherwise 
> building=housing_terrace. But not building=terraced_house as that implies a 
> single dwelling.
> 

+1, that’s what I tried to say (I would map individual terraced houses and add 
building=terraced_house). For individual houses there is also 
building=detached, building=semi detached etc. , that’s one reason why 
building=terrace is unclear (whole terrace of houses or a single terraced 
house?). Building:part / building =terrace could also be intended for a covered 
terrace (paved horizontal outdoor area). Covered because that would imply it is 
a building (at least in some cases).

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Sep 2018, at 01:09, Johnparis  wrote:
> 
> I said "for example." Taginfo has 2716 different values for the "access" key, 
> only a few of which are documented.


there’ll always be a long tail in a system that allows to use any tags you 
like. Documentation makes most sense for tags that are used in significant 
numbers, while the biggest part has insignificant usage and is generally 
ignored.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Steve Doerr]

On 10/09/2018 08:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


I agree that building=terrace is not a nice tag, I would prefer 
building=terraced_house


To my mind, a terrace consists of a number of terraced houses. Each 
house in the terrace is one terraced house, but the whole block of 
houses (mapped as a single object) is not a terraced house.



--

Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Colin Smale]

For an individual dwelling, we have building=house. For the entire row
as a single building, building=terrace_of_houses might be better, or
otherwise building=housing_terrace. But not building=terraced_house as
that implies a single dwelling.

On 2018-09-10 09:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:27, André Pirard  wrote:
>> 
>> In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be:
>> building=house
>> house:terraced=yes
>> be it as a row of houses or a single one.
> 
> I agree that building=terrace is not a nice tag, I would prefer 
> building=terraced_house
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Colin Smale]

Graeme, 

You suggest that coastline and baseline might be the same thing.
Unfortunately I, and many other people would take a different view. The
coastline (especially as used in OSM) is a geographically defined line,
that no law or declaration can change. It is normally taken to be
connected to the high water line. The baseline is however defined
politically, normally as a heavily generalised derivative of the low
water line, with rules (see UNCLOS and the Convention you referenced)
about how bays, islands, archipelagos, river mouths etc. can be factored
in to the resulting list of coordinates which is published to the world.
This baseline is the 0-line for the calculation of the 6/12 mile limits
and 200 mile EEZ. Watery bits on the land side of the baseline are
"internal waters" and are subject to the jurisdiction of the land (under
control of the local government). On the sea side of the baseline
maritime law will prevail, usually under control of the national
government in conjunction with all kinds of treaties. 

If the USA has defined the word "coastline" to mean "baseline", what
term does it use for the coastline in a geographic sense?

I believe that coastline and baseline are two different concepts which
need to be treated separately. If they happen to be colinear in some
cases, that's OK. But I am thinking here of vertical harbour walls,
where in 2D the high water line and low water line lay on top of one
another., and not some human declaration. 

We will need to be a little pragmatic, because OSM mappers are never
going to be able to do a proper survey of the coastline with the same
degree of accuracy as professional surveyors. We are limited to
leveraging existing data sources for all kinds of boundaries, other than
occasional anecdotal points. Trying to come up with our own definition
of things like coastline is a complete non-starter. The position of the
"river crossing" in the coastline should similarly follow existing
definitions. If we want to make further distinctions in our data so for
example salty water can be distinguished from fresh water, or so tidal
influence on river flow speed and direction can be represented, I am
sure the OSM community can find some suitable tagging for that, but that
is a separate issue to the COASTLINE discussion. 

On 2018-09-10 01:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 08:25, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> So are we getting any closer to consensus on where the coastline should 
>> cross the river? I think only if it is "somewhere between the tidal limit 
>> and the sea". Are all "crossing points" then equally valid? Or can we expect 
>> strong disagreements (especially at the limits) and possible edit wars?
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think we are ever all going to agree - some people are 
> adamant about the tidal limit, while other's are equally convinced that it 
> should be where the river enters the sea, & both arguments are just as 
> logical as the other. 
> 
> I think part of the problem is the lack of a precise definition of just what 
> is the "coastline"? eg Merriam-Webster dictionary "a line that forms the 
> boundary between the land and the ocean or a lake" which could well mean that 
> the coastline goes up a river, but how far? 
> 
> While searching for a better answer, I did however find this: 
> http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/E2D8E00068ACF5EE8525622F004AA168.
>  
> 
> Some of the highlights include:  
> 
> "Congress reacted to these decisions by enacting the Submerged Lands Act of 
> 1953.[10] Congress defined "coast line" to mean "the line of ordinary low 
> water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the 
> open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters" 
> 
> "the Supreme Court set the meaning of "coast line" in its earlier decree.[32] 
> The Court defined the term to mean "the line of ordinary low water along that 
> portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the 
> line marking the seaward limits of inland waters."" 
> 
> "During the late 1950s, the coastal countries of the world proposed, 
> discussed, and drafted a treaty known as the Convention on the Territorial 
> Sea and Contiguous Zone, April 29, 1958.[34] The hope was to provide 
> uniformity in the delineation of the nations' territorial sea. Rather than 
> using the term "coast line," the Convention used the term "baseline" in the 
> measurement of the territorial sea. Article 3 defines the "baseline" for 
> measuring the territorial sea as "the low water line along the coast as 
> marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." The 
> Convention was ratified by the United States in 1961 and became effective in 
> 1964.[35] It is as a result of the Convention that the term "baseline" is 
> used regarding coastline issues." 
> 
> "By applying both the Convention and the Submerged Lands Act to Article X, 
> section 16, Florida Constitution, the 

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Sep 2018, at 02:27, André Pirard  wrote:
> 
> In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be:
> building=house
> house:terraced=yes
> be it as a row of houses or a single one.


I agree that building=terrace is not a nice tag, I would prefer 
building=terraced_house

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:19 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/09/18 10:27, André Pirard wrote:
>

>
> On the other hand, I once asked how to map a part of the street that is 
> fitted with tables and seats near a café or restaurant.
> That is a real terrace.
>
>
> But it is not a building! So building=terrace is totally incorrect for this 
> kind of terrace.
>
> Are the tables and seats fixed? Or do they get moved?
> If fixed .. I'd tend to go with man_made=table and man_made=seat.
> However that are over 400 amenity=table in the data base, so look for 
> yourself.
>

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=outdoor_seating
which is now rendered on the default style on osm.org as well.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging