Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Tagging maxspeed is purely for a router.  So are turn restrictions.

As for turn:lanes meant for complex intersectionsthe examples in the
wiki show very simple uses.  I can't see anything in it, or the discussion
page, indicating that it is only for complex intersections.  Certainly
there is a lot of talk about how to use it with some complex roads, but
overall it appears to be intended for exactly this type of situation
(namely, indicating lane guidance for exits).

--jack


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease  wrote:
>
>> I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be
>> "tagging for the router".
>>
>
> On some level, all of it is.
>
>
>> I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of
>> describing complex intersections. Tagging simple intersections with this
>> scheme just to get a routing engine to display the correct arrow icon is a
>> waste of time.
>>
>
> A sufficiently smart router could potentially use the info to determine
> whether or not it's plausible to make Y number of lane changes of X
> distance to make a turn and route accordingly.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease  wrote:

> I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be
> "tagging for the router".
>

On some level, all of it is.


> I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of
> describing complex intersections. Tagging simple intersections with this
> scheme just to get a routing engine to display the correct arrow icon is a
> waste of time.
>

A sufficiently smart router could potentially use the info to determine
whether or not it's plausible to make Y number of lane changes of X
distance to make a turn and route accordingly.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week.
>
> If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty
> much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.
>

No problem.  Another, more side-by-side comparison you can see now would be
US 75 in Oklahoma.  I'm working northbound-only right now (fixing only
glaring inconsistency on the southbound side for the time being), working
north from the Red River/Texas state line.  I've made it to the south end
of the Durant business loop so far.  The interstates in Oklahoma are
already done, though I'm probably going to have to revisit that since a
cross-state road trip is what brought my attention to "none" not being well
tolerated by data consumers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week.

If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty
much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.

--jack


On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I've given it a little minor tag-completion update if anybody wants to
> compare notes.
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Duane Gearhart  wrote:
>
>> FYI - the exit 78 interchange information has been updated. The Mapzen
>> directions are calling out the exit as you expected
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car
>> ute=31.67026%2C-83.61169%3B31.66674%2C-83.61442#map=18/31.66803/-83.61124
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:
>>
>>> My interpretation:
>>>
>>> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>

>>> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
>>> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
>>> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
>>> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
>>> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
>>> tag.
>>>
>>>
 mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are
 very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint
 left ?

>>> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?

>>>
>>> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
>>> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>>>
>>>
 do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?

>>>
>>> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
>>> or overgrown with vegetation?
>>>
>>> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
 the information should be useful for navigation
>>>
>>>
>>> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
>>> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
>>> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
>>> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
>>> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>>>
>>> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct
>>> me to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would
>>> be miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a
>>> simple "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> > This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
> a place to put tags.
> > This freeway should not be split. You said yourself that the exit is not
> part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be placed on the freeway.
>
> That's not entirely true.  The exit ramp technically begins in the middle
> of the far-right travel lane.  If you were to imagine the highway as a
> train track instead, the exit ramp would have to physically connect to the
> rail in the lane.  The same concept applies here, and although I've never
> actually asked one, I'll bet a highway engineer would agree.
>

While not a licensed engineer or planner, my major was civil engineering
and my minor was transportation planning and I'm fairly familiar with the
applicable federal standards.  Without going into semantics, that's
actually a very apt description.  One of my mentors, Sam Baldock, also
tended to take into special consideration on highways he designed that all
movements drivers might reasonably try could be accomplished without having
to make lane changes more frequently than legally allowed.  Essentially,
consider how crossovers are staggered in a railroad yard enforcing
distances between track changes.

I wish Oklahoma did this, I've come across a few places in Tulsa where US
and State highways enter on one side of the roadway and exit on the
opposite side a very short distance later, meaning there's actually no way
to stay on the same route without making at least one illegal lane change
(too close to merge, exit or most recent lane change).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

I've given it a little minor tag-completion update if anybody wants to
compare notes.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Duane Gearhart  wrote:

> FYI - the exit 78 interchange information has been updated. The Mapzen
> directions are calling out the exit as you expected
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car;
> route=31.67026%2C-83.61169%3B31.66674%2C-83.61442#map=18/
> 31.66803/-83.61124
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:
>
>> My interpretation:
>>
>> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
 approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
 without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
 signed with an arrow, such as this one?
  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

>>>
>> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
>> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
>> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
>> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
>> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
>> tag.
>>
>>
>>> mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are
>>> very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint
>>> left ?
>>>
>> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
>>>
>>
>> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
>> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>>
>>
>>> do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
>>>
>>
>> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
>> or overgrown with vegetation?
>>
>> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
>>> the information should be useful for navigation
>>
>>
>> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
>> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
>> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
>> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
>> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>>
>> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct me
>> to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would be
>> miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a simple
>> "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
a place to put tags.
> This freeway should not be split. You said yourself that the exit is not
part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be placed on the freeway.

That's not entirely true.  The exit ramp technically begins in the middle
of the far-right travel lane.  If you were to imagine the highway as a
train track instead, the exit ramp would have to physically connect to the
rail in the lane.  The same concept applies here, and although I've never
actually asked one, I'll bet a highway engineer would agree.


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:

> My interpretation:
>
> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
>>> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
>>> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
>>> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>>>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>>
>>
> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
> tag.
>
>
>> mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are very
>> faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint left ?
>>
> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
>>
>
> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>
>
>> do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
>>
>
> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
> or overgrown with vegetation?
>
> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
>> the information should be useful for navigation
>
>
> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>
> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct me
> to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would be
> miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a simple
> "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 27 ago 2016, alle ore 21:45, Paul Johnson  ha 
scritto:

>>  (you are in a motorway, with exits each 1,2,3 kms.) Where is groundtruth 
>> mapping?
> 
> talk-de doesn't have a monopoly on attention to detail, you know. 


+1

besides the conceptual ugliness, also from a practical point of view it can 
indeed matter:
- typical distance between 2 exits is much more than 1/2/3 km, particularly in 
areas with toll stations at the exits, and in some context you will have to 
turn and go all the way back to the missed exit (the total can easily be 20km 
and more)

- the more people use the map, the more likely it will occur for someone to 
make a difference, it may seem less probable looking at a single driver, but 
looking at all drivers it happens all the time


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:

>
> if you add the way for the forth lane at the point where it starts (as
>> opposed to the point where you latestly could change) you will get less
>> optimal routing suggestions in the case the route is calculated from after
>> the start of this lane (because your navigator will think you can't change
>> any more, while you would still be able to).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> We are talking about 100,200 meters. Are you sure your optimal routing
> suggestion will depend in a trip of km. of 0.1, 0.2 kms.  (you are in a
> motorway, with exits each 1,2,3 kms.) Where is groundtruth mapping?
>

talk-de doesn't have a monopoly on attention to detail, you know.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

> if you add the way for the forth lane at the point where it starts (as
> opposed to the point where you latestly could change) you will get less
> optimal routing suggestions in the case the route is calculated from after
> the start of this lane (because your navigator will think you can't change
> any more, while you would still be able to).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> We are talking about 100,200 meters. Are you sure your optimal routing
suggestion will depend in a trip of km. of 0.1, 0.2 kms.  (you are in a
motorway, with exits each 1,2,3 kms.) Where is groundtruth mapping?

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> I don't know for 4th lane so short if it's better to mantain three lanes
> and then "create a way with one lane" to join or to exit the motorway. It's
> clear and the driver or the data will be there to decide which lane is
> better for him, I think it is not a problem making the change of lane by
> the driver 100m before or after.
>

This breaks how it's being used in the wild again, not to mention all data
consumers, which would put the decision point well too far forward and
assume you've already entered the ramp while still in the turn lane for the
exit, which gets to be very confusing.

That style of ramp is relatively rare here, but fortunately, I am aware of
one I know very well, and that's 31st/Yale to Fairgrounds/Expo Square
(because I have a season pass to the water park there).  I was planning on
saving this until I got to US 64 or OK 51, but went ahead and updated it
real quick since I have the detail down by heart and the topic came up.
There's a pretty decent variety of things going on here, so probably better
off I did it now anyway.  Anyrate, feel free to check out the data
(particularly if you have a style in JOSM that shows lanes and turn lanes
enabled) to get an idea on what does actually give some good lane guidance
in consumers that read for it.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.11909/-95.92259
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-08-27 17:30 GMT+02:00 yo paseopor :

> I don't know for 4th lane so short if it's better to mantain three lanes
> and then "create a way with one lane" to join or to exit the motorway. It's
> clear and the driver or the data will be there to decide which lane is
> better for him, I think it is not a problem making the change of lane by
> the driver 100m before or after.



if you add the way for the forth lane at the point where it starts (as
opposed to the point where you latestly could change) you will get less
optimal routing suggestions in the case the route is calculated from after
the start of this lane (because your navigator will think you can't change
any more, while you would still be able to).

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

I don't know for 4th lane so short if it's better to mantain three lanes
and then "create a way with one lane" to join or to exit the motorway. It's
clear and the driver or the data will be there to decide which lane is
better for him, I think it is not a problem making the change of lane by
the driver 100m before or after.

It's only my opinion
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> what would you suggest in this case (common on this motorway ring):
> https://www.google.it/maps/@41.897599,12.3821544,3a,75y,
> 350.16h,82.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb1o9_JZ0Vq_WPwrk5Bu4Fw!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> There are three through lanes, but the traffic signs are indicating the
> right lane to be an exit lane. This is not an isolated case, all exit
> situations on this motorway (GRA aka A92) are signposted like this.
> https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9005643,12.3832071,3a,75y,
> 10.74h,72.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shgIro-wmlEeMa4osUfJC1g!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
> https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9018473,12.3836299,3a,75y,
> 350.19h,88.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0Wx9Go4W67-TbtDxGiWzUQ!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
> https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9069076,12.3846291,3a,75y,
> 348.56h,95.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQM7Z3kFk25nVrClwFdS7pw!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> I guess the idea is to channel traffic according to its destination, but I
> find it highly misleading, because the overhead signage suggests that the
> lanes lead off the motorway while there are actually 3 lanes that go
> through in all occasions...
>

Looks like in all four examples, a fourth lane joins the mix.  During the
sections with the 4th lane, other than the obligatory not-lane related
tagging, I would add:

placement=right_of:1
lanes=4
turn:lanes=through|through|through|slight_right
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

For me the image is clear, the lane marks on the 4th right lane are shorter
than the other marks. Also the upper traffic signs marks you two closer
exits, this is the reason the big traffic signs explain you all the
possibilities. If you go little bit to the next two pics you see the
directions inside motorway are converting themselves in other exits. In
Spain and Catalonia we have some traffic_signs to mark this.

https://flic.kr/p/LwKGJJ << In Spain
https://flic.kr/p/LzMCHV << In Spain
https://flic.kr/p/LqeqbA << In Catalonia

Also you have to think there's a reason for the order of every city in the
traffic_sign. In Spain and Catalonia there's a style book that explains you
why the order it is like this.I'm pretty sure Italians has a similar style
book.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

what would you suggest in this case (common on this motorway ring):
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.897599,12.3821544,3a,75y,350.16h,82.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb1o9_JZ0Vq_WPwrk5Bu4Fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

There are three through lanes, but the traffic signs are indicating the
right lane to be an exit lane. This is not an isolated case, all exit
situations on this motorway (GRA aka A92) are signposted like this.
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9005643,12.3832071,3a,75y,10.74h,72.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shgIro-wmlEeMa4osUfJC1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9018473,12.3836299,3a,75y,350.19h,88.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0Wx9Go4W67-TbtDxGiWzUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.9069076,12.3846291,3a,75y,348.56h,95.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQM7Z3kFk25nVrClwFdS7pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I guess the idea is to channel traffic according to its destination, but I
find it highly misleading, because the overhead signage suggests that the
lanes lead off the motorway while there are actually 3 lanes that go
through in all occasions...

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Tod Fitch]

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:44 AM, yo paseopor  > wrote:
> If you know which turn:lane it is you can specify it instead there's no 
> marks. In Spain, with administrations in crisis some of them don't paint all 
> the lanes (before the crisis they painted all the lanes). So I think we can 
> explain the destination...if we know it, and if we want to do it (put this 
> extra information). Truth is not the problem. Ground can change. 
> 
> Indeed I think it's fairly safe to say, explicitly painting more than 
> channelization lines isn't exactly a high priority for a lot of highway 
> authorities unless it's not clear by context; I'm a firm believer that the 
> context should be captured.

Perhaps we are dealing with a difference in semantics with one group leaning 
toward show what is painted and the other group leaning toward what is meant. 
The wiki is definitely in the “what is painted” camp but the only data consumer 
I am aware of treats it as “what is meant”.

While I’ve been following the wiki in my turn lane tagging, this discussion has 
led me to think I have been wrong: The biggest purpose for putting lane tagging 
in is for driving assistance while following navigation instructions. So the 
tagging should keep this in mind.

Consider a divided roadway with three continuous lanes in each direction, some 
intersections having purpose built turn lanes and others not.

In the parts of the world I drive, in the absence of marked turn lanes or 
specific turn restrictions, you are allowed to turn right from the right most 
lane and left from the left most lane. So implicitly there is an unmarked 
turn:lanes=left;through|through|through;right tagging leading up to each 
intersection that the data consumer should assume even though per the wiki the 
tagging, if it exists at all, will be turn:lanes=none|none|none

And if turn lanes exist, only the actual lane will be marked with an arrow on 
the pavement: Most through lanes are not marked even though turns from them are 
illegal. So the implicit marking needed by the data consumer is 
“left|through|through|through|right” even though the wiki says to tag it as 
“left|none|none|none|right”.

So the questions are:

1. How can the data consumer determine the difference between “none” meaning 
“left;through”, “through” or “through;right”?

2. If the determination of the meaning of “none” is by ad hoc heuristics, do 
those vary by jurisdiction?

While the system used where I drive seems natural and obvious, I’ve come to 
learn that there are significant differences around the world about what is 
considered natural and obvious, so I can’t assume the ad hoc rules that would 
decode “none” into “left;through”, “through” or “through;right” which apply 
where I drive would apply elsewhere. This, I think makes a strong case for 
tagging the intent rather than the paint on the pavement.

So based on this discussion, I will probably start using “through” instead of 
“none” when I am adding or correcting turn lane tagging.




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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:44 AM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> If you know which turn:lane it is you can specify it instead there's no
> marks. In Spain, with administrations in crisis some of them don't paint
> all the lanes (before the crisis they painted all the lanes). So I think we
> can explain the destination...if we know it, and if we want to do it (put
> this extra information). Truth is not the problem. Ground can change.
>

Indeed I think it's fairly safe to say, explicitly painting more than
channelization lines isn't exactly a high priority for a lot of highway
authorities unless it's not clear by context; I'm a firm believer that the
context should be captured.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Georg Feddern 
wrote:

> Am 26.08.2016 um 14:18 schrieb Kieron Thwaites:
>
>> I can, however, see the rationale behind tagging "none;slight_right",
>> as well as tagging nothing at all, and as such, I think that this is
>> an issue that we need to find consensus on.  That said, I believe Paul
>> is quite correct with his statement that machines "need to be told
>> about these restrictions in order for them to be able to provide
>> useful feedback from it" -- something that isn't explicitly present
>> (or maybe not even implicitly so) but appears obvious to a human on
>> the ground isn't necessary obvious to a machine.
>>
>
> Please do not take it personally - I just toke your answer to hook on,
> because you agreed on "machines need to be told about these restrictions".
>

No problem, I'm willing to take it at face value for clarifying my position.


> May be I am a bit on the devils advocates side here ... ;)
>
> 1. Where are there any restrictions? There is no solid line between the 3
> lanes. ;)
>

Right, but we're not talking about change:lanes=* here.


> 2. If you want to give the machine any advice, you should take
> "through|through|through;slight_right"
> because
> 3. "none|none|none;slight_right" does not give any advice for the both
> left lines - they still could be considered to take the exit.
>

In the physical sense and a "no cop no foul" sense, sure, under ideal
conditions.  In practice, depending on where you're at, it's going to
garner some variation or combination of improprer lane change, or not
turning from the nearest lane, or cause a collision.  We shouldn't be
helping Mayhem play GPS in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h0Qvc6_MfQ if
we can avoid it, even if it still is the driver's responsibility to not be
an idiot (or trust a driverless car to the data without supervision).  It's
still not helpful or going to gain many new end users or contributing
mappers to make it easy for data consumers to give them incorrect
information due to incomplete information just because the DOT left out a
sign or a pavement arrow.


> Well in reality that is the legal situation here - you just have to take
> care for the traffic on the lines.
>

At the risk of being moderately offensive with the stereotypes, this does
remind me of a Family Guy bit about driving...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLuaPZWkvZ0

But in this common case (standard single lane exit) I still do not see any
> necessarity for any advice to the maschine (or the driver), that if the
> route takes the right road one should use the rightmost lane ...
> Same situation with solid lines definitely need case 2 - because even you
> should 'implicitly know' to take the rightmost lane there is another point
> where you already _have_ _to_ be on the rightmost lane - the maschine needs
> this advice to announce it appropriate.
>
> But may be I am a bit too old and have driven too long with my own eyes
> and head - and without a navigation assistant. ;)


This isn't about humans driving in familiar territory, it's about
facilitating automated driving or providing cues for drivers unfamiliar
with the area how to best navigate a new region.  Oddly enough, on
particularly well lane-mapped areas, I'm actually quite surprised how close
Osmand is to lane choices a local with extensive experience with an area
would pick.  Omitting things or leaving "none" in there generally throws
off some oddities (like suggesting a spot where there's two marked left
turn lanes, three lanes with no markings and a right turn lane with an
arrow that you can turn left from the five leftmost lanes or right from the
four rightmost).  Rather than expecting data consumers have to have
programmatic assumptions for every jurisdiction, imparting this information
even if it's not explicitly signed or posted yet only debatable in the most
farcical of situations, should be considered ground truth for the purposes
of mapping and not just killing potential developers interested in
providing lane guidance.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Georg Feddern]

Am 26.08.2016 um 14:18 schrieb Kieron Thwaites:

I can, however, see the rationale behind tagging "none;slight_right",
as well as tagging nothing at all, and as such, I think that this is
an issue that we need to find consensus on.  That said, I believe Paul
is quite correct with his statement that machines "need to be told
about these restrictions in order for them to be able to provide
useful feedback from it" -- something that isn't explicitly present
(or maybe not even implicitly so) but appears obvious to a human on
the ground isn't necessary obvious to a machine.


Please do not take it personally - I just toke your answer to hook on, 
because you agreed on "machines need to be told about these restrictions".


May be I am a bit on the devils advocates side here ... ;)

1. Where are there any restrictions? There is no solid line between the 
3 lanes. ;)
2. If you want to give the machine any advice, you should take 
"through|through|through;slight_right"

because
3. "none|none|none;slight_right" does not give any advice for the both 
left lines - they still could be considered to take the exit.
Well in reality that is the legal situation here - you just have to take 
care for the traffic on the lines. ;)


But in this common case (standard single lane exit) I still do not see 
any necessarity for any advice to the maschine (or the driver), that if 
the route takes the right road one should use the rightmost lane ...
Same situation with solid lines definitely need case 2 - because even 
you should 'implicitly know' to take the rightmost lane there is another 
point where you already _have_ _to_ be on the rightmost lane - the 
maschine needs this advice to announce it appropriate.


But may be I am a bit too old and have driven too long with my own eyes 
and head - and without a navigation assistant. ;)


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

If you know which turn:lane it is you can specify it instead there's no
marks. In Spain, with administrations in crisis some of them don't paint
all the lanes (before the crisis they painted all the lanes). So I think we
can explain the destination...if we know it, and if we want to do it (put
this extra information). Truth is not the problem. Ground can change.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Johan C]

It is quite simple, If there is a through arrow, the value is through. If
there is no arrow, the value is none. Groundtruth mapping!

Cheers, Johan

2016-08-26 15:41 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
>> I think you can specify the information you know instead this information
>> is not explicit written on the road. So for me , in my opinion it is better
>> specify through or whatever will be the direction that none or   |" "
>> (blank) or something like that.
>>
>
> Agreed.  If you know (either by regional context/knowledge or by markings
> visible) the turns, go ahead and tag it as the explicit direction.  I
> suggest the "none" tag be used for lanes that don't go anywhere for some
> reason (rare, but consider a permanently closed lane) and a null answer
> when it's not clear which way the lane goes (armchair mapping in an
> unfamiliar region, for example).
>
> ___
> 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] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> I think you can specify the information you know instead this information
> is not explicit written on the road. So for me , in my opinion it is better
> specify through or whatever will be the direction that none or   |" "
> (blank) or something like that.
>

Agreed.  If you know (either by regional context/knowledge or by markings
visible) the turns, go ahead and tag it as the explicit direction.  I
suggest the "none" tag be used for lanes that don't go anywhere for some
reason (rare, but consider a permanently closed lane) and a null answer
when it's not clear which way the lane goes (armchair mapping in an
unfamiliar region, for example).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

I think you can specify the information you know instead this information
is not explicit written on the road. So for me , in my opinion it is better
specify through or whatever will be the direction that none or   |" "
(blank) or something like that.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> I think it is so clear. Instead of no painting marks with an arrow, you
> have some vertical signs and also no_change lane marks, so for me it is
> clear how it works. With all traffic signs, posted I think the junction
> will have all the information software needs to process it.
> Also I think it is tru there's no turn lane marks...but you can add this
> information with turn:lanes so it is not needed to wirte "none" when you
> know this lane is for going through.
>

Just to clarify, through would be the correct value if you know the lane is
going through; osmand (and presumably other data consumers) will try to
guess what "none" is, but in my experience, that's a value best reserved
for a lane whose access:lanes value is no...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[yo paseopor]

I think it is so clear. Instead of no painting marks with an arrow, you
have some vertical signs and also no_change lane marks, so for me it is
clear how it works. With all traffic signs, posted I think the junction
will have all the information software needs to process it.
Also I think it is tru there's no turn lane marks...but you can add this
information with turn:lanes so it is not needed to wirte "none" when you
know this lane is for going through.

In Spanish traffic_sign preset menu I have tried some examples of tags with
"Orientation/Confirmation" menú. It will be possible to do it with other
countries.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Kieron Thwaites]

I can't comment whether this is "proper" usage or not, but I can
illustrate how I've personally tagged lanes at freeway exits:

Take, for example, this freeway interchange close to where I grew up
(note: left-hand drive): https://goo.gl/maps/5eF35SVed452

There's no lane markings to indicate direction itself, but there is a
solid line starting a few hundred metres out and continuing just past
the ramp, indicating no lane changes from lane 2 to lane 1 (where lane
1 is the left-most lane).

There is, however, overhead signage for this particular interchange as follows:

https://goo.gl/maps/ApFqTg7vRQT2 (1 km out)
https://goo.gl/maps/FTtiG5UHaxx (500 m out)
https://goo.gl/maps/VMw9Rcpsua62 (at the ramp)

The sign 500 m out is the key one -- that's the one that has the turn
lane information on this.  As such, were I to add turn lane data in
this area (I wouldn't, as I moved out of that city in 2010 and don't
consider myself to have sufficient local knowledge there any more),
I'd tag as follows:

From 500 m out until the point where the ramp separates:
turn:lanes=slight_left;through|none|none
The section with the painted lane restriction: change:lanes=yes|not_left|yes

Now, this is an urban setting and the overhead signage makes (to me,
anyway!) the tagging rather unambiguous.  In a rural setting however,
all you're likely to get is this:

https://goo.gl/maps/ajR1ccg6g252 (signage 1 km from ramp)
https://goo.gl/maps/NLm9VMNskKK2 (signage at the ramp)
https://goo.gl/maps/6aE1NbsuguG2 (overhead view of the ramp)

There's no explicit lane markings here, but once again, there's a
painted line indicating no lane changes from lane 2 to lane 1 around
the vicinity of the ramp, which implies
turn:lanes=slight_left;through|none (and of course, explicitly
specifies change:lanes=yes|not_left), so even through turn:lanes are
implicit on the ground, I'd explicitly tag it.  I personally see this
as unambiguous as per the urban example.

Now, when it comes to the US example that Jack posted
(http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw), it seems like
there's nothing explicit or implicit, either from painted markings
(either arrows or lane change restrictions) or signage (I jumped on
Streetview and the only other sign I noticed was an "exit in 0.5 mi"
sign, similar in nature to my rural "exit in 1 km" sign).  In this
case, I would side with "through;slight_right" -- even though there's
nothing explicitly or implicitly specifying as such, the reality on
the ground appears that one can only exit from the right-most lane
while continuing to continue through, and the remaining lanes are for
through traffic only.

I can, however, see the rationale behind tagging "none;slight_right",
as well as tagging nothing at all, and as such, I think that this is
an issue that we need to find consensus on.  That said, I believe Paul
is quite correct with his statement that machines "need to be told
about these restrictions in order for them to be able to provide
useful feedback from it" -- something that isn't explicitly present
(or maybe not even implicitly so) but appears obvious to a human on
the ground isn't necessary obvious to a machine.

--K

On 26 August 2016 at 08:37, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:06 PM, David Mease  wrote:
>>
>> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
>> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
>> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
>> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
>> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>
>
> Arrows on the road, at least in North America, are typically only installed
> to indicate relatively unusual lane restrictions, with the typical lane
> restrictions assumed to be common knowledge.  This is where this trips up
> automation, as machines need to be told about these restrictions in order
> for them to be able to provide useful feedback from it or lane guidance will
> be a NP-complete thing for data consumers to deal with.  I mean, I get it,
> don't tag for the data consumer.  But on the other hand, don't break the
> data consumer with stupid tagging schemes, either.
>
> ___
> 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] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:06 PM, David Mease  wrote:

> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
> arrows on the roads led them astray.


Arrows on the road, at least in North America, are typically only installed
to indicate relatively unusual lane restrictions, with the typical lane
restrictions assumed to be common knowledge.  This is where this trips up
automation, as machines need to be told about these restrictions in order
for them to be able to provide useful feedback from it or lane guidance
will be a NP-complete thing for data consumers to deal with.  I mean, I get
it, don't tag for the data consumer.  But on the other hand, don't break
the data consumer with stupid tagging schemes, either.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Rihards  wrote:

> On 2016.08.26. 00:15, Jack Burke wrote:
>
>> Freeway exit tagging
>>
>>
>> I am totally confused.
>>
>> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
>> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
>> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
>> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>
>> Through examples[1], the wiki shows that when the freeway lanes *are*
>> signed, then "through;slight_right" appears to be the correct value.
>> The wiki examples also appear to indicate that "through" is *only*
>> appropriate when there is corresponding signage.  The wiki is also very
>>
>
> referencing the previous topic in talk-us about how lane tagging should
> follow lane _markings_, i'd like to suggest to only map the legally allowed
> driving directions, no matter how we arrive at them.
>
> mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are very
> faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint left ?
> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
> do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
>
> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
> the information should be useful for navigation software - or, more
> importantly, for the end user (no matter which software delivers useful
> service to them). they don't really care how exactly the allowed directions
> are marked, as long as they get through it all without crashes and fines.
>

This is a pretty nice summary of what I was getting at in the previous
thread on talk-us.  Especially given how common it is to not have the turn
arrows in the first place.  I'm a firm believer that the wiki is wrong on
this one and the ground truth for turn lane tagging should be the actual
application of the lanes, with or without the presence of supporting
signage or pavement markings.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging