Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0
On 6/24/19, yo paseopor wrote: > BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial > Page 50 > Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada, > delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga una > anchura suficiente para permitir la circulación de una fila de automóviles > que no sean motocicletas. Here's my translation, FWIW "Lane. Lengthwise strip into which a roadway may be subdivided, whether or not delineated by longitudinal road markings, as long as it is wide enough to allow the flow of a queue of automobiles, other than motorcycles." So in Spain a lane is a concept of a linear part of a road which is wide enough to be used by a line of automobiles, whether or not it is marked by painted lines. I believe this is a common definition in many other countries as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0
Also when they are a passable, two way road? BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial Page 50 Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada, delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga una anchura suficiente para permitir la circulación de una fila de automóviles que no sean motocicletas. It is the place of the road , limited or not by marks , that has sufficient width to fit a row of motor vehicles (not motorcycles). In a road, if you can fit a row of motor vehicles, then , in Spain, it is a lane. So... lane=1 oneway=no could be possible Also if you have the width to fit a motor vehicle it is a lane so... In a road lane=0 is not possible in Spain Salut i carrils (Health and lanes) yopaseopor On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:41 PM Allroads wrote: > So there are lanes and virtual lanes. > > We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately, > whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no > marking. > > Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set marked = yes. > (or else) to make the distinction. > See wikipedia and else, there all marked. > > A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes! > (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new > tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law) > To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear. > > What do you think of: > > > > lanes: virtual = (number), lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag > needed. > > The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a > route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach. > > You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM, > these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual > lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the > definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed. > Problem solved. > > > > > > Quote: yo_paseopor > In Spain is easy: when there is no marks = lanes=1 > > Also when they are a passable, two way road? > > When there are no marking there are no lanes. > lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction. > > A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane > (rijstrook)(law). > > > Allroads. > > ___ > 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] lanes = 0
Let's try looking at this from a different direction. All roads must have the capacity to convey one vehicle width. Some roads have formal lane markings ( in which case the number of lanes will be obvious) and other road types have informal (i.e. none) lane markings. On the latter, the number of lanes is somewhat variable, and may depend upon the road surface type, the types of vehicles approaching, and recent precipitation ( which could fill edges, and dynamically contract the width). So maybe trying to put a finite number of lanes on an informal road situation may be a long process that satisfies no one. On informal roads , width may be the only viable metric. On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:41 AM Allroads wrote: > So there are lanes and virtual lanes. > > We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately, > whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no > marking. > > Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set marked = yes. > (or else) to make the distinction. > See wikipedia and else, there all marked. > > A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes! > (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new > tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law) > To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear. > > What do you think of: > > > > lanes: virtual = (number), lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag > needed. > > The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a > route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach. > > You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM, > these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual > lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the > definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed. > Problem solved. > > > > > > Quote: yo_paseopor > In Spain is easy: when there is no marks = lanes=1 > > Also when they are a passable, two way road? > > When there are no marking there are no lanes. > lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction. > > A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane > (rijstrook)(law). > > > Allroads. > > ___ > 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] lanes = 0
So there are lanes and virtual lanes. We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately, whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no marking. Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set marked = yes. (or else) to make the distinction. See wikipedia and else, there all marked. A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes! (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law) To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear. What do you think of: lanes: virtual = (number), lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag needed. The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach. You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM, these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed. Problem solved. Quote: yo_paseopor In Spain is easy: when there is no marks = lanes=1 Also when they are a passable, two way road? When there are no marking there are no lanes. lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction. A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane (rijstrook)(law). Allroads. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
