Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14. May 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


>
>
> sent from a phone
> On 14. May 2018, at 08:48, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>
>>> Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> for oneway streets with a counterflow lane
>>
>> cycleway=opposite_lane is typically used
>>
>
>
> this is for situations where there is only a counterflow lane (only one lane)

yes 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Gemis 
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 19:40
> 
> The wiki page on cycling infrastructure from the Lübeck Stammtish,
> mentioned this explicitly "und/oder", see [1]
> 
> I also see that they use cycleway:left/right=sidepath, I have never
> used that, I used bicycle:forward/backward=use_sidepath
> 
> What is the preferred method ?
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/L%C3%BCbeck/Fahrradstadtplan
> (in German)

I had "use_sidepath" instead of "sidepath" in my mind as well... but looking at 
the stats in taginfo, it seems that sidepath usage is currently 1-2 orders of 
magnitude ahead of use_sidepath.





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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 19:07



according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right" at 
the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed?

This particular wiki page seems to be somewhat misleading in that case.

 

cycleway:left=* describes the cycleway on the left side (as seen when looking 
in the forward direction of the way), on its own, it does not say anything 
about the presence or absence of a cycleway on the right side.

 

So if you have a road with a cycleway on only one side :

 

cycleway:left=lane

or

cycleway:right=lane

 

to be explicit you could then also add:

cycleway:right=no 

or

cycleway:left=no 

(the absence of a tag isn’t guaranteed to mean “no”, it could also mean 
“unknown”, depending on how the software interprets it, as there is no clearly 
defined default value for cycleway).

 

If there are cycleways on both sides, you can write it as either:

 

cycleway=lane 

(only in case of a two-way street, for a one-way street, this would imply that 
there is only one cycle lane on the left- or right-hand side [depending on 
local traffic rules])

 

or

 

cycleway:both=lane 

(which even in case of a one-way street would mean that there are two 
cycleways, both in the same direction as the oneway street; in case of a 
two-way street the cycle lanes on the different sides are in the direction of 
traffic on that side of the road)

 

or

 

cycleway:left=lane

cycleway:right=lane 

(same as cycleway:both=lane)

 

The main reason why you would use separate tags is for:

cycleway:left=lane

cycleway:right=opposite_lane 

 

(or any other case when the cycleway type is different on both sides of the 
road).

 

If the later case (different cycleway on left and right side) is allowed (which 
is necessary), then it doesn’t make sense to prohibit use of the same tags with 
the same value.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Gemis 
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:55
> 
>> cycleway:left=opposite_lane (or cycleway:right, depending)
>> oneway:bicycle=no
>
> I would expect that the above is for the case that there is only a
> contra-flow lane. And that for drive with the flow you have to
> share the space with the cars

If these are the only tags, that is correct.

> I would map it as
> 
> cycleway:left=opposite_lane
> cycleway:right=lane
> oneway:bicycle=no
> and typically oneway:moped_A=no (special category of mopeds in
> Belgium)
> 
> is that wrong ?

This is what I meant. Sorry for not expressing it well. My "if one of the two 
is for traffic against the flow indicated by the oneway tag, use:" was meant to 
express that you change one of the two tag so:

If there are two cycle lanes, both in oneway direction, use:

cycleway:left=lane
cycleway:right=lane

if one of the two is for opposite direction traffic, replace that one with 
opposite_lane (but keep the other lane one). 



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

The wiki page on cycling infrastructure from the Lübeck Stammtish,
mentioned this explicitly "und/oder", see [1]

I also see that they use cycleway:left/right=sidepath, I have never
used that, I used bicycle:forward/backward=use_sidepath

What is the preferred method ?


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/L%C3%BCbeck/Fahrradstadtplan
(in German)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right"
>> at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed?
>
>
> Wher did you find this exclusion?
> The "cycleway" wiki page [1]  does not exclude it, I would say:
> " Consider using the cycleway:left=lane and / or cycleway:right=lane tags
> instead for a cycle lane which is on the left and / or right side, relative
> to the direction in which the way was drawn in the editor, as this describes
> on which side the cycle lane is. "
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

>
> according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right"
>> at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed?
>>
>
> Wher did you find this exclusion?
>


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway:right%3Dlane
"A cycle lanes only on one side of the road."
(left is redirected to right).

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

> according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right"
> at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed?
>

Wher did you find this exclusion?
The "cycleway" wiki page [1]  does not exclude it, I would say:
" Consider using the cycleway:left
=lane
 and / or
cycleway:right =lane
 tags
instead for a cycle lane which is on the left and / or right side, relative
to the direction in which the way was drawn in the editor, as this
describes on which side the cycle lane is. "

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-14 10:37 GMT+02:00 :

> For one-way streets, I’m not sure how most software is going to interpret
> it. As it’s somewhat ambiguous, I would say the better solution with a
> oneway street is to go with an explicit:
>
>
>
> cycleway:left=lane
>
> cycleway:right=lane
>
>
>


according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right"
at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:37



if there is only one cycle lane, but it’s allowed to travel in both directions 
on an otherwise one-way road use:

 

cycleway:left=opposite (or cycleway:right, depending which side, as seen from 
the forward direction of the main oneway road the two-way cycle lane is one)

oneway:bicycle=no

 

This was wrong, I’ve already corrected it in my previous post. 

 

cycleway=opposite means that there are no specifically marked lanes, but travel 
in the opposite direction is allowed for bicycles.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

>
> If bicycles are allowed to travel against the oneway, but there is no
> explicit lane marked for them, use: (this is correcting my previous post)
>
>
>
> cycleway=opposite
>
>
>
> (my previous post was somewhat wrong, as if there is no explicitly marked
> lane, using cycleway:left or cycleway:right for the value opposite only
> makes sense if there are signs explicitly telling you what side to travel
> on. I would assume that in case of a plain cycleway=opposite, the normal
> left-/right-hand traffic rules of the location apply.)
>

or just use oneway:bicycle=no (which is the preferred method in Belgium afaik)
in case there are no lanes.

>
>
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:19
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
>
>
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
> On 14. May 2018, at 08:48, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?
>
>
>
> for oneway streets with a counterflow lane
>
> cycleway=opposite_lane is typically used
>
>
>
>
>
> this is for situations where there is only a counterflow lane (only one
> lane), or not?
>
>
>
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

>
> if one of the two is for traffic against the flow indicated by the oneway
> tag, use:
>
>
>
> cycleway:left=opposite_lane (or cycleway:right, depending)
>
> oneway:bicycle=no
>

I would expect that the above is for the case that there is only a
contra-flow lane. And that for drive with the flow you have to share
the space with the cars

I would map it as

cycleway:left=opposite_lane
cycleway:right=lane
oneway:bicycle=no
and typically oneway:moped_A=no (special category of mopeds in Belgium)

is that wrong ?

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

As far as I can tell, for two-way streets, there is no differences, it’s just 
more explicit. 

 

Given the difference in usage numbers (1522 vs. 254509) I would go with just 
cycleway=lane (I actually checked these numbers before I made that last post).

 

For one-way streets, I’m not sure how most software is going to interpret it. 
As it’s somewhat ambiguous, I would say the better solution with a oneway 
street is to go with an explicit:

 

cycleway:left=lane

cycleway:right=lane

 

if one of the two is for traffic against the flow indicated by the oneway tag, 
use:

 

cycleway:left=opposite_lane (or cycleway:right, depending)

oneway:bicycle=no

 

if there is only one cycle lane, but it’s allowed to travel in both directions 
on an otherwise one-way road use:

 

cycleway:left=opposite (or cycleway:right, depending which side, as seen from 
the forward direction of the main oneway road the two-way cycle lane is one)

oneway:bicycle=no

 

(yes, that isn’t exactly the best value, but that’s what the wiki defines and 
looking at overpass query results, it seems to be used as such)

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 16:38
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

 

sent from a phone


On 14. May 2018, at 08:05, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

So the easiest tagging is:

 

lanes=2

cycleway=lane

 

 

is there a difference to cycleway:both=lane ?

Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?

 

cheers,

Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2018, at 08:48, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?
> 
> 
> for oneway streets with a counterflow lane
> 
> cycleway=opposite_lane is typically used
> 


this is for situations where there is only a counterflow lane (only one lane), 
or not?

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Philip Barnes]

Here is one example of a road with soft cycle lanes but no (vehicle) lanes.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Z0DBe6sffpL7aubYj0zpaQ

I use it regularly, it is plenty wide enough to pass other cars whilst staying 
out of the cycle lane but a lot of drivers do struggle with the concept of 
mostly no centreline.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 13 May 2018 19:26:40 BST, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis 
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis 
>wrote:
>> > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1.
>Awkward
>> but
>> > correct.
>>
>>
>> This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it)
>> and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and
>> something similar for backward.
>
>
>How can there be any bicycle lanes if there are no lanes?  It literally
>doesn't add up.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. May 2018 23:34 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be the intermediate 
> consumers of the data - not the end users, but rather the people who 
> implement the routers, renderers, navigation systems,. search engines, and so 
> on that present the data to the end users. They are the ones who have the 
> knowledge of both what features and attributes will be relevant to their 
> communities and what tagging will make it easier to do the job of rendering, 
> routing, navigation, search and so on.




It is de facto happening. Tag supported in rendering, routing, editors,

not triggering validator complaints will win over unsupported version (or at 
least get massive boost). 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14. May 2018 01:45 by ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>:


>> Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:51:26 -0400
>> From: Bryan Housel <>> br...@7thposition.com 
>> <mailto:br...@7thposition.com>>> >
>> To: osm-tagging <>> tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> >
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
>>
>>
>> [...]
>> It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way 
>> to standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping 
>> dataset.  Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools should just 
>> get together over beers and decide what all the tags should be.  I’ll buy!
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>




At least in part it an be easily done: whenever some tag is obviously a 
terrible idea from

perspective of using data document it on Wiki. 





If some new tag is necessary - document it on Wiki (I did it, both from side of 
somebody using 


OSM data and from side of mapper that is currently not using data).




If somebody is interested anybody may do this.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14. May 2018 08:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> On 14. May 2018, at 08:05, <> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
> > > <> 
> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > 
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So the easiest tagging is:
>>
>>  
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> cycleway=lane
>>
>
>
> is there a difference to cycleway:both=lane ?

 

cycleway:both=lane explicitly tags that there are lanes on both sides,

cycleway=lane is doing it implicitly and there is small risk that somebody

will tag/process it with different assumptions





> Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?




for oneway streets with a counterflow lane

cycleway=opposite_lane is typically used

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2018, at 08:05,  
>  wrote:
> 
> So the easiest tagging is:
> 
>  
> 
> lanes=2
> 
> cycleway=lane
> 


is there a difference to cycleway:both=lane ?
Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:51:26 -0400
From: Bryan Housel <br...@7thposition.com>
To: osm-tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes


[...]



It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way to 
standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping dataset.  
Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools should just get together 
over beers and decide what all the tags should be.  I’ll buy!


[...]



+1



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?


if you want to be explicit, you could also add cycleway:left:lanes=0 and 
cycleway:right:lanes=0 ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
> 
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see no 
> alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo, 
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
> 
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?


to me it looks ok, but the wiki defines cycleway:right and cycleway:left as 
exclusive tags (“only”), which should probably be changed, to enable tagging 
like this (and particularly for the rare cases where both cyclelanes go into 
the same direction). Or is there a good reason to make these tags exclusive/not 
combinable?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good
> way to standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping
> dataset.  Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools should just
> get together over beers and decide what all the tags should be.  I’ll buy!
>
> Until then, I think it would be great if people are nicer to one another,
> respect each other’s viewpoints, be willing to be wrong, and don't take
> either the established tagging or the wiki too seriously.  Everything in
> OSM is broken to some degree, but everything in OSM can be improved if
> people care enough to do so.
>

I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be the
intermediate consumers of the data - not the end users, but rather the
people who implement the routers, renderers, navigation systems,. search
engines, and so on that present the data to the end users. They are the
ones who have the knowledge of both what features and attributes will be
relevant to their communities and what tagging will make it easier to do
the job of rendering, routing, navigation, search and so on.

Arguing in a vacuum about whether the tags will have the 'right' semantics
in some sort of ideal Platonic sense is ultimately fruitless.

(And +1 on being nice! Be careful that isguided mapping doesn't ascend to
the level of vandalism, but even policing that can be done in a nicer way.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Bryan Housel]

Hah speaking of lanes..
Why does the osm wiki page for `leisure=track` list `lanes=*` under the “useful 
combination” section.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=track 


I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an athletics track that allowed motorized 
vehicles to drive around it.

It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way to 
standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping dataset.  
Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools should just get together 
over beers and decide what all the tags should be.  I’ll buy!

Until then, I think it would be great if people are nicer to one another, 
respect each other’s viewpoints, be willing to be wrong, and don't take either 
the established tagging or the wiki too seriously.  Everything in OSM is broken 
to some degree, but everything in OSM can be improved if people care enough to 
do so.

Thanks, Bryan

p.s. Yes iD does suggest the lanes tag on athletic tracks based on this wiki 
page.  Don’t hate me.
p.p.s.  It’s been this way at least 4 years and nobody has complained.



> On May 13, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> 
> 13. May 2018 20:58 by ba...@ursamundi.org :
> 
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis  > wrote:
> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the 
> tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one.
> 
> Improvement=vandalism.  Got it.
> 
> 
> There is a clear consensus that redefining lanes tag is not considered to be 
> an improvement.
> 
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. May 2018 20:58 by ba...@ursamundi.org :


> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the 
>> tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one.
>
> Improvement=vandalism.  Got it.




There is a clear consensus that redefining lanes tag is not considered to be an 
improvement.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 13, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis  > wrote:
> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the 
> tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one.
> 
> Improvement=vandalism.  Got it.
>  
> The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it.
> 
> That's literally not how any editor works.  Plus, bike LANE literally has 
> lane in the name.  When is a lane not a lane?  Apparently, to OSM, when the 
> wiki says so. 

Don’t think of them as words but as key identification strings. I think you are 
too wedded to the concept that the key identification string, if it matches an 
English word, must exactly match some dictionary definition of that word. In a 
sense it does but with our wiki being the dictionary.

OSM is filled with a host of pragmatic partial solutions that are found later 
to be woefully inadequate. This is one. The project has gotten far by using 
“good enough for now” and/or “better than what we have now” as a guide rather 
than looking for perfection at each step.

Back when a five character key identifier string was selected to describe the 
number of lanes a common motor vehicle could use the definition of that key 
definition was, in retrospect, deficient. But it is in wide spread use with 
nearly all mappers and data consumers using the existing definition of the key. 
With more experience, we find that there are more things, and more complicated 
things, we’d like to describe when mapping the cross section of a road. The 
pragmatic way forward, the OSM way forward, is to create a new key string or 
tagging system for that better definition.

I suggest a you work on a proposal for a new tagging system including new keys 
that better fits our current mapping needs. You might even come up with a key 
string that has the letters ‘a', ‘e', ‘l', ’n' and ’s' in it. There is the 
tradition in OSM that keys strings and value strings be based on relatively 
current UK usage of words but there seems to be little resistance to key 
strings created from compounds of words so you might consider that option.

If the scheme is well defined, makes sense to mappers (not just people on the 
tagging lists), is easy enough to work with, and adds enough value (“its better 
than what we have now”) then adoption will follow and the existing inadequate 
key can be deprecated.

I’d probably start with looking at the *:lanes suffix tagging system as I think 
it covers a lot of cases better. And I think it likely it can be extended to 
include cycle lanes including those separated from motor vehicle traffic by a 
parking lane or those which might allow bi-directional bicycle traffic on a way 
that only allows one direction of motor vehicle traffic. And it might be 
extended to cover the case common in my area where the through cycle lane is 
between one or more right turn lanes and the through lanes for motorized 
vehicles. But that is to be expected: The *:lanes key identifier suffix was 
developed more recently and reflects many lessons learned. Maybe it is flexible 
enough to be used in conjunction with your new key string(s) for describing the 
total number of components a road way contains.

If you decide that the current key that describes the number of motor vehicle 
lanes can be extended to cover other types of lanes, then you should be 
prepared to show a path to adoption that allows the millions of things tagged 
using the current wiki definition to be handled sanely by data consumers.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Simon Poole]

Am 11.05.2018 um 17:40 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>
> Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even
> the Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a
> superior approach comes around.
>
Try to change the semantics of an existing LINUX system call (which is
the real equivalent of what you are proposing) and you will find that
this was a happy party in comparision.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis  wrote:

> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how
> the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one.
>

Improvement=vandalism.  Got it.


> The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it.
>

That's literally not how any editor works.  Plus, bike LANE literally has
lane in the name.  When is a lane not a lane?  Apparently, to OSM, when the
wiki says so.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Johnparis]

Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the
tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one.

The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it.





On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis 
>> wrote:
>> > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1.
>> Awkward but
>> > correct.
>>
>>
>> This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it)
>> and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and
>> something similar for backward.
>
>
> How can there be any bicycle lanes if there are no lanes?  It literally
> doesn't add up.
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward
> but
> > correct.
>
>
> This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it)
> and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and
> something similar for backward.


How can there be any bicycle lanes if there are no lanes?  It literally
doesn't add up.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward but
> correct.


This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it)
and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and
something similar for backward.

> Op za 12 mei 2018 23:16 schreef Paul Johnson :
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
>>> count cycle lanes?
>>
>>
>> The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue.
>>
>> How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2?
>>
>> https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj
>>
>> How is this lanes=2 and not lanes=4?
>>
>>
>> http://www.oregonlive.com/cycling/index.ssf/2013/10/hawthorne_bridge_gets_new_bike.html
>>
>> What now?
>>
>>
>> https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/bicycleboulevard_offsetcrossing_rendering/offset_crossings3.jpg
>>
>> I'm sure this fits the wiki's idea of the world and doesn't give cyclists
>> bad lane advice at all.
>>
>>
>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/76/c2/a376c2693250554476060fc87b00be9f.jpg
>>
>> All involved would probably appreciate advanced warning of this example of
>> what's on the ground being stupid.
>>
>>
>> https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/dangerous-double-right-turn-in-fremont/
>>
>> It's not just the US doing stuff like this.
>>
>> https://tinlizzieridesagain.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/100_8603.jpg
>>
>> Christchurch, NZ actually suggests this:
>>
>>
>> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPHHygdFnRA/UwCbqrLXfoI/RMA/yPT4ic1zTqw/s1600/christchurchmadjunction.jpg
>> ___
>> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

I would just map them as lanes =2; cycleway=lane. That is how they are
mapped in Belgium and The Netherlands.
Isn't that the L1a case of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle that you describe ?

regards

m.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes
> for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side.
> Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized
> traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see
> no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question
> about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without
> changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes.
>
> Thanks in advance
>

I still stand by
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036179.html as
being the best way to handle this situation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question
about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without
changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes.

Thanks in advance


On 13 May 2018 at 16:30, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2018, 00:37 Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
>> For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1.
>>
>
> This literally doesn't add up. Also, that's a shoulder on the right, Tulsa
> screwed up and used white paint for the centerline.
>
> Awkward but correct.  But as said before,  the lanes tag is pretty useless
>> beside some simple,  straightforward street layouts,  for even number of
>> total lanes evenly divided in both directions.  Lanes=3 is useless,  not?
>>
>
> No!  That tag makes it easy to find a tagging error further down.  There's
> a good reason validators choke when the forward, backward and both_ways
> lanes don't total the lane count.  Editors set this automatically,
> validators throw errors for on this because that idea is brick to the head,
> physically induced brain trauma, short-bus riding special.
>
> So once again,  define a new tag or do not use the lanes tag,  or use it
>> as it is defined now.  Do not change its meaning.
>>
>
> I'm not, the wiki is.
>
>>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 13, 2018, 00:37 Marc Gemis  wrote:

> For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1.
>

This literally doesn't add up. Also, that's a shoulder on the right, Tulsa
screwed up and used white paint for the centerline.

Awkward but correct.  But as said before,  the lanes tag is pretty useless
> beside some simple,  straightforward street layouts,  for even number of
> total lanes evenly divided in both directions.  Lanes=3 is useless,  not?
>

No!  That tag makes it easy to find a tagging error further down.  There's
a good reason validators choke when the forward, backward and both_ways
lanes don't total the lane count.  Editors set this automatically,
validators throw errors for on this because that idea is brick to the head,
physically induced brain trauma, short-bus riding special.

So once again,  define a new tag or do not use the lanes tag,  or use it as
> it is defined now.  Do not change its meaning.
>

I'm not, the wiki is.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward
but correct.  But as said before,  the lanes tag is pretty useless beside
some simple,  straightforward street layouts,  for even number of total
lanes evenly divided in both directions.  Lanes=3 is useless,  not?

So once again,  define a new tag or do not use the lanes tag,  or use it as
it is defined now.  Do not change its meaning.

Op za 12 mei 2018 23:16 schreef Paul Johnson :

> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
>> count cycle lanes?
>
>
> The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue.
>
> How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2?
>
> https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj
>
> How is this lanes=2 and not lanes=4?
>
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/cycling/index.ssf/2013/10/hawthorne_bridge_gets_new_bike.html
>
> What now?
>
>
> https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/bicycleboulevard_offsetcrossing_rendering/offset_crossings3.jpg
>
> I'm sure this fits the wiki's idea of the world and doesn't give cyclists
> bad lane advice at all.
>
>
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/76/c2/a376c2693250554476060fc87b00be9f.jpg
>
> All involved would probably appreciate advanced warning of this example of
> what's on the ground being stupid.
>
>
> https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/dangerous-double-right-turn-in-fremont/
>
> It's not just the US doing stuff like this.
>
> https://tinlizzieridesagain.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/100_8603.jpg
>
> Christchurch, NZ actually suggests this:
>
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPHHygdFnRA/UwCbqrLXfoI/RMA/yPT4ic1zTqw/s1600/christchurchmadjunction.jpg
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2018, at 22:01, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a
> larger number says no.


I don’t know who the other person is, my stance is they would better be counted 
but I don’t do it currently, apart from lanes on cycleways (dedicated ways). 
Btw: according to the lanes page wiki definition the cycleway lanes must not be 
tagged as lanes (it refers to all highways), but on the same page there is an 
example for a highway=cycleway with lanes=2
i.e. the page is not clear (ok, just saw this is a recent addition from january 
and might have to be reverted).

So basically according to the wiki there is no way to state the amount of lanes 
on a cycleway, at least “lanes” should not be used?

Cheers,
Martin



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
> count cycle lanes?


The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue.

How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2?

https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj

How is this lanes=2 and not lanes=4?

http://www.oregonlive.com/cycling/index.ssf/2013/10/hawthorne_bridge_gets_new_bike.html

What now?

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/bicycleboulevard_offsetcrossing_rendering/offset_crossings3.jpg

I'm sure this fits the wiki's idea of the world and doesn't give cyclists
bad lane advice at all.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/76/c2/a376c2693250554476060fc87b00be9f.jpg

All involved would probably appreciate advanced warning of this example of
what's on the ground being stupid.

https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/dangerous-double-right-turn-in-fremont/

It's not just the US doing stuff like this.

https://tinlizzieridesagain.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/100_8603.jpg

Christchurch, NZ actually suggests this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPHHygdFnRA/UwCbqrLXfoI/RMA/yPT4ic1zTqw/s1600/christchurchmadjunction.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a
larger number says no. AFAIK a non-OSM person will not count cycle
lanes when asked to tell how many lanes a road has.
I asked around on the Belgian OSM Riot Channel and immediately got 3
responses, to NOT count cycle lanes.

So please follow the wiki, create your own tag to include cycle lanes
and hope that it will get traction.

Why do you keep mistagging roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
count cycle lanes? I see this as deliberate vandalism.

I understand that you do not agree with the current definition,
however I do not understand why you insist on putting an incorrect
value in that tag.
We have a free tagging schema, so it is easy to create a new tag for
your purpose.

regards

m.


On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
>>> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.
>>
>>
>> We do that because of a UN convention:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html
>
>
> Sure, and that was a pretty motorist-oriented convention, unsurprising since
> its inception was in 1968.  There's plenty of Vienna Convention countries
> that have bicycle lanes now and even marked out lanes on ways only open to
> bicycles, an increasing number of which have multiple bike lanes on the same
> roadway in the same direction.  So I'm pretty sure the idea has evolved a
> bit in the intervening half century.
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
>> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.
>>
>
> We do that because of a UN convention: https://lists.openstreetmap.or
> g/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html


Sure, and that was a pretty motorist-oriented convention, unsurprising
since its inception was in 1968.  There's plenty of Vienna Convention
countries that have bicycle lanes now and even marked out lanes on ways
only open to bicycles, an increasing number of which have multiple bike
lanes on the same roadway in the same direction.  So I'm pretty sure the
idea has evolved a bit in the intervening half century.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Steve Doerr]

On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't 
think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.


We do that because of a UN convention: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html


--
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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years
>> now, the only thing that could
>>
> happen on this would be improve.
>>
>
> So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
> 6,700,000 get it right.  And it has been that
> way for YEARS.  So with your proposal, we switch from 6,700,000 tags that
> are right and 300,000 that are wrong
> to 300,000 that are right and 6,700,000 that are wrong.  And you consider
> that an improvement???
>

I'm not sure where you're getting an inversion of the problem from.
Improving lane tagging by removing the error by omission would reduce the
number of wrong ways while increasing the number of correct ways.


> Oh, but you reject (as an arbitrary rule) any suggestion that we would
> have to fix all those broken tags at
> the same time as we redefine the meaning, so they would STAY BROKEN for
> YEARS.
>

There's ways to deal with this situation, but you have to first acknowledge
that there's a 300,000 way glaring error by omission with the current
situation, that *won't* be fixed, *ever*, by maintaining the status quo.


> Do you really not understand why motorists want to plan routes around the
> number of lanes suitable
> for motor vehicles rather than the total number of lanes, not all of which
> may be suitable for motor
> vehicles?
>

Do you not understand that some roads have more than one bicycle lane, and
many places have bicycle lanes *between* motor vehicle lanes?  Like
literally anywhere in the US that has a right turn lane and a bicycle lane
at this point.  Also, this is supposed to be a map of increasing
completeness for everyone.  Not a map of we only care what motor vehicles
need.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
> 6,700,000 get it right.
>


These numbers are inflated, most highways don't have cycle lanes, so it
doesn't matter, they keep their count in both ways of counting.
254 459
*cycleway* 
*lane* 


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place
>> AT THE SAME
>> TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>> I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do
>> it in.  Maybe, if he
>> asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.
>>
>
> Where are you getting this arbitrary rule from?
>

This "arbitrary rule" is simply common sense.  It is what is necessary in
order to prevent a sub-optimal
mess of conflicting meanings.  Even you know that this is so, although you
do not understand the
implications.  Consider your own words:


> Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years
> now, the only thing that could
>
happen on this would be improve.
>

So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
6,700,000 get it right.  And it has been that
way for YEARS.  So with your proposal, we switch from 6,700,000 tags that
are right and 300,000 that are wrong
to 300,000 that are right and 6,700,000 that are wrong.  And you consider
that an improvement???

Oh, but you reject (as an arbitrary rule) any suggestion that we would have
to fix all those broken tags at
the same time as we redefine the meaning, so they would STAY BROKEN for
YEARS.

Do you really not understand why this is not an improvement?

Do you really not understand why motorists want to plan routes around the
number of lanes suitable
for motor vehicles rather than the total number of lanes, not all of which
may be suitable for motor
vehicles?

Do you really not understand that your suggestion has received no support
here?  I know, you're
thinking that you are smarter than the rest of us.  Remember this: "They
laughed at Galileo.
They laughed at Newton.  They laughed at Einstein.  They also laughed at
Koko the Clown."

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
>
>> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
>> barrier.
>>
>>
>> You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*
>> is used and
>>
>> coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.
>>
>
> You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place
> AT THE SAME
> TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do
> it in.  Maybe, if he
> asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.
>

Where are you getting this arbitrary rule from?  Considering that it's
already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years now, the only thing
that could happen on this would be improve.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :
>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission
>>> of bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems
>>> for lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
>>>
>>
>> All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost
>> every other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
>> see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
>> "lanes" as meaning car lanes only.
>>
>
>
> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about
> "car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be
> counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle
> lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements /
> sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes
> available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for
> a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of
> the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short
> one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag
> definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the
> template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in
> the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me).
>
> Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage
> lanes?
>

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > We have this problem even at this moment
> > (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we
> > can refer you, new mappers and  data consumers to the wiki page and
> > say this is how it should be done.
>
>
> we could do this also with a changed definition. We would assume
> everything to be tagged according to the new definition and if it doesn’t
> fit it should be corrected, and people could be referred to the wiki ;-)
>

Especially since the number of ways that has a lanes tag that also has a
cycleway on it, worldwide, is smaller than the number of ways I've counted
lanes on, in Oklahoma alone.


> On the other hand I agree it is a hard step, and transitioning via a new
> tag would be more sane / cause few problems.
>

Except implementation.  This is a change that most data consumers and
editors are able to handle cleanly now, and if not, might kick 'em in the
pants to finally implement lane access parsing like they should have been
already anyway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
>> barrier.
>>
>> It does not sound that way to me.  It sounds to me like there is a very
> real problem in
> redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,972,733
> times.
>

Or, you know, check Taginfo, on this, since you only have to look at
the 299,658 objects that have a cycleway tag and a lanes tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
> barrier.
>
>
> You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*
> is used and
>
> coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.
>

You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place AT
THE SAME
TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do it
in.  Maybe, if he
asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.

I wish you a good luck with this project.
>

Indeed.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-12 13:04 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are
> marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway
> are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the
> "marked" requirement)?
>



the answer is probably because someone has unilaterally added these words
10 years ago into the wiki, based on assumptions from his regional context,
without being aware that many parts of the world are built according to
different standards (or no standards). It is a typical norther European /
American point of view, where everything is "well organised" and
structured, so that unsigned lanes at most occur systematically in the
countryside, but not in the centre of a big city. And where all traffic is
focussed on motorized vehicles.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of
>> bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for
>> lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
>>
>
> All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost every
> other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
> see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
> "lanes" as meaning car lanes only.
>


Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about
"car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be
counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle
lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements /
sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes
available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for
a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of
the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short
one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag
definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the
template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in
the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me).

Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage
lanes?

Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are
marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway
are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the
"marked" requirement)?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> We have this problem even at this moment
> (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we
> can refer you, new mappers and  data consumers to the wiki page and
> say this is how it should be done.


we could do this also with a changed definition. We would assume everything to 
be tagged according to the new definition and if it doesn’t fit it should be 
corrected, and people could be referred to the wiki ;-)

On the other hand I agree it is a hard step, and transitioning via a new tag 
would be more sane / cause few problems.

Paul mentioned Linux Kernel changes but it isn’t really comparable, because the 
Kernel is not something depending on the user actions/adoption, it is decided 
top down and the users ideally will not even notice changes. Changing a tag 
definition is more like changing the interpretation of a code word in 
legislation, e.g. the meaning of “must” or “should” (simple examples, excuse my 
ignorance of english legislation, but I hope you understand what I try to say). 
This is AFAIK never done, because nobody can oversee all the consequences for 
all legal texts.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org :


> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual 
> barrier.




You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=* is 
used and 


coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.




I wish you a good luck with this project.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. May 2018 19:49 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson <> ba...@ursamundi.org 
> > > wrote:
>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual 
>> barrier.
>>
> It does not sound that way to me.  It sounds to me like there is a very real 
> problem in
> redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,972,733 times.




To repeat: redefining tag use over 7 million times is impossible.




If you really think it is necessary and useful please use a new tag 


(all_lanes=* or something) rather by destroying data by using your personal

definition for lane tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2018 05:49
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org 
<mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org> > wrote:

 

None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of 
bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for lane 
guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.

 

All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost every 
other mapper, apart from yourself, does not

see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees "lanes" 
as meaning car lanes only.

 

Actually, it is a problem “right now” already, because all lanes= tagged with 
the “PJ lane count” are wrong and probably need a fixme applied to have a local 
mapper verify the correct count on the ground and fix them…

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of
> bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for
> lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
>

All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost every
other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
"lanes" as meaning car lanes only.

"Hard to fix" isn't an excuse for leaving it wrong now that it's already a
> problem and only going to get worse as more bicycle facilities are built.
>

As people keep patiently trying to explain to you, it isn't wrong now and
it's not a problem.  What would be wrong,
VERY wrong, is your fix to something that isn't currently broken which
would result in it being very broken.

This isn't like Linux where releases are co-ordinated and people can choose
which release of which kernel in
which distro to install/upgrade to without affecting anybody else.  This
isn't like yum or apt or some other package
manager knowing that to update X it also has to update Y.  This isn't like
adding ESMTP extensions in a
backward-compatible way to SMTP with "EHLO".  This is like decreeing that
every mail server in the world
switch from SMTP/ESMTP to incompatible PJMTP (Paul Johnson Mail Transfer
Protocol) but without any
co-ordination whatsoever over a period of decades, so that for the entire
transition period there will be
miscommunication between servers running different protocols.

People keep telling you the correct way to handle a count of cycle lanes
but you keep insisting on a broken
solution.  Hint: when everybody else is marching out of step but you, the
problem is with you.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 12:50 Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> At which point in that long transition should editors switch?  And when
> should
> renderers switch?  And when should routeing algorithms switch?
>

None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of
bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for
lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.

"Hard to fix" isn't an excuse for leaving it wrong now that it's already a
problem and only going to get worse as more bicycle facilities are built.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
> barrier.
>
> It does not sound that way to me.  It sounds to me like there is a very
real problem in
redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,972,733
times.

There is no magic wand that can do an automatic global edit because EACH
INDIVIDUAL USE must be checked ON THE GROUND to see if the current
value is retained under the new definition or if it must be changed.

None of those manual changes are going to happen overnight. This means that
there will be a period of time, probably YEARS, when consumers can't be
sure of
what they're getting.  Actually, it will take years for 90% changeover and
decades
to catch it all.

At which point in that long transition should editors switch?  And when
should
renderers switch?  And when should routeing algorithms switch?

This proposal is MADNESS.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

The only way to do it properly is

- define a new tag "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes"
- deprecate lanes (during this period data-consumers should use
"lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" and fallback on "lanes" if the
former is not there)
- wait until all highways with a lanes tag also have
"lanes_for_all_transportation_modes"
- drop "lanes"-tag
- rename "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" to "lanes"-tag

but that is only if you want a definition for lanes that no non-OSM'er
understand. As pointed out before, traffic rules and most people
understand lane as something on which you can drive with a car.

m.

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
> barrier.
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:25 Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even
>> > the Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a
>> > superior approach comes around.
>>
>> The difference between having a small group of core developers who are all
>> communicating with one another lead by a single individual (Linux kernel)
>> and a community of tens of thousands, maybe millions, of contributors with a
>> multitude of different communication channels and with no single leader
>> (OSM). Changing core features/functionality in the former is much easier
>> than in the later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
barrier.

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:25 Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> > On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even
> the Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a
> superior approach comes around.
>
> The difference between having a small group of core developers who are all
> communicating with one another lead by a single individual (Linux kernel)
> and a community of tens of thousands, maybe millions, of contributors with
> a multitude of different communication channels and with no single leader
> (OSM). Changing core features/functionality in the former is much easier
> than in the later.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

The first reference to tagging lanes for cyclist on the lanes page is
made here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanes=revision=648732=648729
by PeterIto

My interpretation is that he writes that cycle lanes should be mapped
as cycleway=lane (and thus not be included in the lanes-count).
So perhaps you should contact him to ask why he came up with this
definition (besides the arguments we gave above) ?


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:58  wrote:
>>
>> I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with
>> cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2,
>> cycleway=lane, and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values
>> each).
>
>
> cycleway=* is not lane tagging, you're just not tagging the lanes, so you've
> made tags that are syntactically correct and passes a validator, but in
> error by omission compared to ground truth.
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even the 
> Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior 
> approach comes around.

The difference between having a small group of core developers who are all 
communicating with one another lead by a single individual (Linux kernel) and a 
community of tens of thousands, maybe millions, of contributors with a 
multitude of different communication channels and with no single leader (OSM). 
Changing core features/functionality in the former is much easier than in the 
later.




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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

Is OsmAnd interpreting the lanes tag correctly in the presence of
cycle lanes when it is tagged like you do ?

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different.
>> > That's fine. They don't have to be the same.
>>
>> it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really
>> warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose
>> right.
>
>
> I believe the editors and the data consumers are already getting it right.
> The problem isn't the tool chain that handles completionist mapping
> correctly, the problem is omissionist documentation encouraging omissionist
> mapping.
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even the
> Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior
> approach comes around.

typically such a thing is done in 2 phases (e.g. Java language)
announce that the old API is deprecated and offer the new one in
parallel. Then, after a grace period, drop the old API.
This change is well announced, and it is clear which results you might
expect with the old and the new API.

Now apply this to the lanes-tag: Day A it means only "full width". The
next day it means all lanes, but none of the objects with this tag are
updated. Now, people will revisit those places one-by-one and update
the value. But perhaps some mappers did not read the new definition
and keep adding lanes-tag according to the old definition for awhile.

Now try to find out what the meaning is of the lanes tag on any random
object in the DB. Will you be successful ? I hardly doubt so.

There is no problem adding a new "lanes_for_all_vehicles"-tag, as
everyone using that tag knows that they have to count the cycle lanes
and perhaps pedestrian lanes as well.

Changing the meaning of a tag or value is impossible since the data
will not tell you whether it is put in the database according to the
old or the new definition. We have this problem even at this moment
(since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we
can refer you, new mappers and  data consumers to the wiki page and
say this is how it should be done. We do not wilfully introduce
ambiguity in the interpretation of tags.

regards

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:58  wrote:

> I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with
> cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2,
> cycleway=lane, and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values
> each).
>

cycleway=* is not lane tagging, you're just not tagging the lanes, so
you've made tags that are syntactically correct and passes a validator, but
in error by omission compared to ground truth.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis  wrote:

> > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different.
> That's fine. They don't have to be the same.
>
> it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really
> warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose
> right.
>

I believe the editors and the data consumers are already getting it right.
The problem isn't the tool chain that handles completionist mapping
correctly, the problem is omissionist documentation encouraging omissionist
mapping.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 02:56 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count
> the "full width segments for motorised traffic".
>
>
> what is the definition for “full width”? Is a road with 1,8 width lanes=0?
> width=2.4? Given that maximum vehicle width is 2,50 it would seem sane to
> assume full width to be at least 3,00 m.
>

The MUTCD allows motor vehicle lanes to be as narrow as 9'0" for low speed
applications like alleyways and residential streets. Meanwhile, new
on-street bike lanes in Tulsa and Portland that I've seen built in the last
couple years are a minimum of 7'0" plus at least a 2'0" buffer, but because
streets in the 30-40 mph range have to have 11'0" or wider lanes, often
it's a 7'0" bike lane with buffers to encourage riding down the middle of
that space, further from the door zone or faster traffic.

Width is a pretty lousy criteria for excluding lanes, especially when lane
width tagging is a thing.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 01:56  wrote:

> > From: Marc Gemis 
> > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44
> >
> > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only
> > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps
> > because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) define
> > them that way. So people started using the tag that way and data
> > consumers started writing software depending on that definition.
> >
> > Perhaps it would have been better to count cycle lanes as well,
> > but we did not. For me, this means that with a tag as popular
> > as lanes, we cannot alter the definition later on. It would mean
> > that we have to retag a lot of objects and that tagging habits
> > have to change. Furthermore, the tag would be useless for data
> > consumers until we declare all lanes-tags to be updated to the
> > new definition.
>
> THAT is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The definition of the
> lanes tag predates the introduction of the :lanes suffix by many years. It
> has always been defined as "number of full width lanes for motorized
> traffic. Given then widespread use of this tag it's basically impossible to
> simply change it's definition.
>

Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even the
Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior
approach comes around.

>
> Furthermore, I do not know anyone that, when shown this picture:
>
>
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.218495,153.0061827,3a,66.8y,204.86h,78.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2DBegIPPNP78TmCjslUavA!2e0
>
> and asked, "is that a 2 lane or a 4 lane street" would say that it's a 4
> lane street.


That is a four lane street, the curb lanes are obviously bike lanes, even
without scrolling back to the intersection thanks to the shoulderline along
tbe curb and the narrow lane width.

Similar here:
>
>
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.2305921,153.0252325,3a,66.8y,285.94h,79.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWt2KhVfIcF3-YzMzGE1xFQ!2e0
>
> Nobody I know would tell me that is a 3 lane road.
>

Correct, hard shoulder.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 11:57 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :
> > 
> > Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live
> > in a rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these
> > using the width tag. I would only use lanes if there are painted
> > lanes on the road. 
> 
> 
> i.e. you would remove lanes tags in cases where the markings have
> disappeared due to missing maintenance? Would you split roads before
> intersections to add lanes tags close to traffic lights where there
> are markings, so you could remove the lanes tags from the parts where
> there aren't? How long would you say a segment of missing markings
> has to be in order to merit splitting the highway and removing the
> lanes tag?

I am thinking mostly of rural roads that are less than the width to
have lanes, to tag these as having two lanes would be wrong and
misleading as, whilst they have a 60 mph speed limit and that speed is
achievable you will expect to have to slow down and take care when
passing other traffic. You also need to slowdown on bends as visibility
is limited.

They are not advisable as through routes for large vehicles.

It is common for other rural roads, whilst mostly 2 lanes to drop in
width where they encounter restrictions, such as bridges. I map the bridge 
sections with width.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2018, at 15:11, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> Martin, in case of the absence of lane markings, does one have to use
> flashing lights to change "virtual" lanes ?


Romans make very sparse use of turn indicators in general, compared to German 
traffic, you only need them for some kind of infractions like turning from the 
straight on lane ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

we have some crossings with 4 lanes where the driving direction is
south/north/south/north (we drive on the right hand side normally, so
it should have been south/south/north/north). They did this so left
turning traffic is not blocking the left turning traffic from the
other side. This can not be modelled with the current lane tagging.

Martin, in case of the absence of lane markings, does one have to use
flashing lights to change "virtual" lanes ?

regards

m

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM,  wrote:
>
>> The real world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make
>> of it.
>
>
> Indeed.  Many years ago I encountered two places in the UK (one in Scotland,
> one in
> England) where a road which had three lanes across its width had the left
> lane for
> north-south, the right lane for south-north and the middle lane changed
> (indicated by traffic lights) according to the time of day.  This was to
> accommodate rush
> hour where mornings would see more traffic toward the town centre and
> afternoons
> more traffic away from it.
>
> The Golden Gate Bridge in the US does something similar but in a more
> dynamic
> way.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeQnStAH0U
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM,  wrote:

The real world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make
> of it.
>

Indeed.  Many years ago I encountered two places in the UK (one in
Scotland, one in
England) where a road which had three lanes across its width had the left
lane for
north-south, the right lane for south-north and the middle lane changed
(indicated by traffic lights) according to the time of day.  This was to
accommodate rush
hour where mornings would see more traffic toward the town centre and
afternoons
more traffic away from it.

The Golden Gate Bridge in the US does something similar but in a more
dynamic
way.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeQnStAH0U

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 11. May 2018, at 14:25,  
 wrote:

>> If 3 vehicles drove side by side (which is the 
>> typical situation there, not counting the psv lane), which one would be 
>> "outside" the lanes?
> 
> The middle one clearly, it's half way in each of the official lanes.


sounds logical, but it is strange: assume 2 cars driving on the right side of 
the road (as required by the traffic code) side by side, now a third car 
overtakes, which is completely legal if there is sufficient room, regardless of 
lanes. Why should this put the law abiding driver of the middle car in a 
suspicious condition? Now imagine this is not one car, but lots.


> 
>> while I still agree, following this concept would mean to count 
>> lanes based on situations somewhere else, not? 
> 
> In the absence of any signs that would indicate such a change, it depends on 
> the width of the road.



> 
> In that case, if there is a clear point where the width of the road changes, 
> that's the split point.
> 


+1



> If the chance is gradual, take the midway point.


this IMHO is not compatible with the verifiability criterion 



> 
> If there is no noticeable change in the width of the road, assume the number 
> of lanes in traffic flow direction remains constant up to the point where it 
> clearly is indicated by road markings to be different.
> 
> Assuming you have high enough resolution imagery, use JOSM and the "lane and 
> road attributes" mapstyle, then specify your lane widths in detail using 
> width:lanes at the points where the lanes are clearly marked. 
> 
> Adjust the geometry of the way to try and fit it into the available road 
> surface along its way. Then work outwards in both directions from the points 
> where you know the lane count for sure based on road markings, you will 
> clearly see if there are places where you need to increase or decrease the 
> lane widths. 
> 
> If you need to decrease the land width below about 2.5m to make it fit, 
> that's a strong indication that you have too many lanes from that point on. 
> If you have to increase the land width much beyond 3-3.5m, AND further down 
> the road are more lanes than you currently have, it's probably time to 
> increase the lane count.


Seems workable, but the result would still be questionable WRT verifiability. 
At this point it seems most sane to omit the lanes tagging in the absence of 
road markings and indicate just a width (if only they hadn’t set up this psv 
lane recently it would be cleaner)


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 21:45

> while I would generally agree with the idea of having officially 3 lanes, 
> I would have thought that lanes would have to be painted on the road, not 
> just indicated by signs. 

Under the strict reading of the definition on the wiki, probably. The real 
world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make of it. The 
road is designed to have 2 lanes (plus a psv lane). That's made clear by the 
sign. That they never bothered to mark it on the road surface (or it got lost 
after a repaving maybe) doesn't really change that.

> If 3 vehicles drove side by side (which is the 
> typical situation there, not counting the psv lane), which one would be 
> "outside" the lanes?

The middle one clearly, it's half way in each of the official lanes.

> while I still agree, following this concept would mean to count 
> lanes based on situations somewhere else, not? What if the lane 
> count changes between the intersections (indeed happens), where 
> would you split the highway if no lanes are painted?

In the absence of any signs that would indicate such a change, it depends on 
the width of the road.

If the number of marked lanes at the intersections differs, it's very likely 
that the width of the road will also be different. 

In that case, if there is a clear point where the width of the road changes, 
that's the split point.

If the chance is gradual, take the midway point.

If there is no noticeable change in the width of the road, assume the number of 
lanes in traffic flow direction remains constant up to the point where it 
clearly is indicated by road markings to be different.

Assuming you have high enough resolution imagery, use JOSM and the "lane and 
road attributes" mapstyle, then specify your lane widths in detail using 
width:lanes at the points where the lanes are clearly marked. 

Adjust the geometry of the way to try and fit it into the available road 
surface along its way. Then work outwards in both directions from the points 
where you know the lane count for sure based on road markings, you will clearly 
see if there are places where you need to increase or decrease the lane widths. 

If you need to decrease the land width below about 2.5m to make it fit, that's 
a strong indication that you have too many lanes from that point on. If you 
have to increase the land width much beyond 3-3.5m, AND further down the road 
are more lanes than you currently have, it's probably time to increase the lane 
count.



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 13:24 GMT+02:00 :

> I would tag that as:
>
>
>
> oneway=yes
>
> lanes=3
>
> lanes:psv=1
>
> vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no
>
> psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated
>
> parking:lane:left=parallel
>
> parking:condition:left=ticket
>
> sidewalk=both
>
>
>
> This sign clearly defines how many lanes there are and that it’s a psv
> lane (not just a bus lane):
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8976885,12.4654864,
> 3a,17.5y,4.9h,90.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPA9cA6SFCm4EvIHqGgo-
> -Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
>
>
>

while I would generally agree with the idea of having officially 3 lanes, I
would have thought that lanes would have to be painted on the road, not
just indicated by signs. If 3 vehicles drove side by side (which is the
typical situation there, not counting the psv lane), which one would be
"outside" the lanes?




> The road markings near the intersection also make it clear how many lanes
> there are :
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8994254,12.4643407,
> 3a,66.8y,356.59h,86.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOEpzRTQFWoZi-4BndvycFg!2e0
>
>
>
> (the leftmost lane here was the parking lane, which is not included in
> lanes=x)
>
>
>


while I still agree, following this concept would mean to count lanes based
on situations somewhere else, not? What if the lane count changes between
the intersections (indeed happens), where would you split the highway if no
lanes are painted?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

I would tag that as:

 

oneway=yes

lanes=3

lanes:psv=1

vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no

psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated 

parking:lane:left=parallel

parking:condition:left=ticket

sidewalk=both

 

This sign clearly defines how many lanes there are and that it’s a psv lane 
(not just a bus lane):

 

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8976885,12.4654864,3a,17.5y,4.9h,90.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPA9cA6SFCm4EvIHqGgo--Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

The road markings near the intersection also make it clear how many lanes there 
are :

 

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8994254,12.4643407,3a,66.8y,356.59h,86.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOEpzRTQFWoZi-4BndvycFg!2e0

 

(the leftmost lane here was the parking lane, which is not included in lanes=x)

 

The parking tags probably need some more information, but I can’t read the 
signs on streetview, so that’s a job for a field survey.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 20:46
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

I would also find it misleading to tag situations with lanes=2 where there is a 
painted bus lane and the rest of the carriageway (wide enough for 2-3 lanes) 
has no separations, like here:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8987442,12.4647371,3a,75y,156.28h,56.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWEPSOplLQldMLooamvppkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656



Cheers,

Martin



OT: 

these are obviously not representative pictures of the road as they have 
probably been taken in the hottest period when everyone had left the city for a 
few days,

usual conditions are like this 
https://static.fanpage.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/traffico-roma3-300x225.jpg

and in case of problems something like this 
https://www.ilmessaggero.it/photos/HIGH/83/38/2098338_trafficoroma.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I would also find it misleading to tag situations with lanes=2 where there
is a painted bus lane and the rest of the carriageway (wide enough for 2-3
lanes) has no separations, like here:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.8987442,12.4647371,3a,75y,156.28h,56.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWEPSOplLQldMLooamvppkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Cheers,
Martin


OT:
these are obviously not representative pictures of the road as they have
probably been taken in the hottest period when everyone had left the city
for a few days,
usual conditions are like this
https://static.fanpage.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/traffico-roma3-300x225.jpg
and in case of problems something like this
https://www.ilmessaggero.it/photos/HIGH/83/38/2098338_trafficoroma.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

A lot of residential roads here don’t have markings, like here:

 

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.2131302,153.0260346,3a,55y,45.38h,68.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sci60ZE7unqEW6wDOP9Gh6Q!2e0

 

But they are clearly intended to be 2 lane roads. (Which can be seen from the 
reflectors that are sometimes in the middle of the road and the fact that ty do 
have lane markings in some places, e.g. at the T intersection.

 

I would (and have) tagged such roads with lanes=2.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 19:57
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk 
<mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk> >:



Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live in a rural 
area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these using the width tag. I 
would only use lanes if there are painted lanes on the road. 

 

i.e. you would remove lanes tags in cases where the markings have disappeared 
due to missing maintenance? Would you split roads before intersections to add 
lanes tags close to traffic lights where there are markings, so you could 
remove the lanes tags from the parts where there aren't? How long would you say 
a segment of missing markings has to be in order to merit splitting the highway 
and removing the lanes tag?

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :

>
>
> Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live in a
> rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these using the
> width tag. I would only use lanes if there are painted lanes on the road.



i.e. you would remove lanes tags in cases where the markings have
disappeared due to missing maintenance? Would you split roads before
intersections to add lanes tags close to traffic lights where there are
markings, so you could remove the lanes tags from the parts where there
aren't? How long would you say a segment of missing markings has to be in
order to merit splitting the highway and removing the lanes tag?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Philip Barnes]

On 11 May 2018 08:58:16 BST, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your
>non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture
>?
>At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on
>the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do not
>know how it is defined in other countries. From what Thorsen wrote in
>this thread, I think it's the same in Australia.
>
Same in the UK. 

Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live in a rural 
area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these using the width tag. I 
would only use lanes if there are painted lanes on the road. 

Phil (trigpoint) 



>m.
>
>On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for
>motorised
>> traffic.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this
>inconsistency in
>> the definitions.
>>
>> What would you say about unsigned lanes? This is/was a frequent
>situation in
>> Rome, where there are basically huge areas of asphalt (2-4 lanes)
>without
>> lane markings, or only with lane markings before traffic lights (and
>people
>> not respecting them oftentimes). In recent years they have begun to
>remove
>> the ambiguity by painting more lanes and adding more “channeling”
>> infrastructure like traffic islands and guards rails, but you can
>still find
>> a lot of “wild” situations. Would you agree it is ok to estimate a
>number in
>> the absence of markings, or would you prefer something like width=12
>> lanes=no (or maybe 1)?
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>https://www.instantstreetview.com/@41.888713,12.480457,180.97h,-11.28p,1.54z
>>
>>
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 9:58 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your
> non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture
> ?
> At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on
> the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do not
> know how it is defined in other countries. From what Thorsen wrote in
> this thread, I think it's the same in Australia.
>


I would count the lanes as used by the cars, if there are typically 3 or 4
cars driving side by side, I would call this a 3-4 lanes road, also in the
absence of road markings.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

I've always been editing using JOSM and using the "lane and road attributes" 
mapstyle for visualization (which is pretty much the only editor/map style I'm 
aware of that has support for the large majority of lane related tags, making 
it pretty much the defacto standard implementation given the the majority of 
the relevant proposals never went to voting).

I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with 
cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2, cycleway=lane, 
and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values each).

If there are any validation tools that would complain about this situation, 
then they are broken and the bug needs to be reported.

> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 18:26
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
> 
> > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are
> different. That's fine. They don't have to be the same.
> 
> it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really
> warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose
> right.
> 
> m.
> 
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

> The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. That's 
> fine. They don't have to be the same.

it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really
warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose
right.

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

I'm not sure why we are wasting any time on discussing possible changes to the 
definition of the lanes tag her. 

The tag goes back to pretty much the start of OSM and is in widespread usage. 
Any change in definition that fundamentally changes what value goes into the 
key given a specific situation is basically impossible at this point. Otherwise 
you end up with a mix of tags where the value means one thing and where the 
value means another thing, with no way to distinguish the two, making the tag 
completely useless.

The lanes tag is what it is, which is essential "if you show picture of the 
street to your average person (which has nothing to do with OSM), how many 
lanes would that person say the picture shows".

The lanes=x tag has its definition of what a lane is _for purpose of this tag_. 
That definition has remained and will remain unchanged.

The :lanes suffix has its definition of what a lane is _for purpose of this 
tag_. That definition has remained and will remain unchanged.

The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. That's 
fine. They don't have to be the same.

> -Original Message-
> From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 17:58
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
> 
> If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to
> your non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that
> picture ?
> At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings
> on the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do
> not know how it is defined in other countries. From what Thorsen
> wrote in this thread, I think it's the same in Australia.
> 
> m.
> 
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> > On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for
> > motorised traffic.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this
> > inconsistency in the definitions.
> >
> > What would you say about unsigned lanes? This is/was a frequent
> > situation in Rome, where there are basically huge areas of
> asphalt
> > (2-4 lanes) without lane markings, or only with lane markings
> before
> > traffic lights (and people not respecting them oftentimes). In
> recent
> > years they have begun to remove the ambiguity by painting more
> lanes and adding more “channeling”
> > infrastructure like traffic islands and guards rails, but you can
> > still find a lot of “wild” situations. Would you agree it is ok
> to
> > estimate a number in the absence of markings, or would you prefer
> > something like width=12 lanes=no (or maybe 1)?
> >
> > e.g.
> > https://www.instantstreetview.com/@41.888713,12.480457,180.97h,-
> 11.28p
> > ,1.54z
> >
> >
> > 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



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

It will probably depend on traffic code/law in each country.
According to wikipedia [1] it's normally between 2.5 and 3.5 m
AFAIK when a lane is smaller, and thus not suitable for trucks and
cars with caravans, it has to be indicated by a traffic sign.
For me full width means that a car (which has to be smaller than 2 m,
not ?) can drive over it, without blocking cars in other lanes.


[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijstrook

p.s. this discussion should have been taking to a different thread, as
we are now hijacking the OP's tread on "tagging of one-way cycle
lanes".

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count the 
>> "full width segments for motorised traffic".
>
>
> what is the definition for “full width”? Is a road with 1,8 width lanes=0? 
> width=2.4? Given that maximum vehicle width is 2,50 it would seem sane to 
> assume full width to be at least 3,00 m.
>
> Ciao, 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your
non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture
?
At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on
the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do not
know how it is defined in other countries. From what Thorsen wrote in
this thread, I think it's the same in Australia.

m.

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised
> traffic.
>
>
>
> I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this inconsistency in
> the definitions.
>
> What would you say about unsigned lanes? This is/was a frequent situation in
> Rome, where there are basically huge areas of asphalt (2-4 lanes) without
> lane markings, or only with lane markings before traffic lights (and people
> not respecting them oftentimes). In recent years they have begun to remove
> the ambiguity by painting more lanes and adding more “channeling”
> infrastructure like traffic islands and guards rails, but you can still find
> a lot of “wild” situations. Would you agree it is ok to estimate a number in
> the absence of markings, or would you prefer something like width=12
> lanes=no (or maybe 1)?
>
> e.g.
> https://www.instantstreetview.com/@41.888713,12.480457,180.97h,-11.28p,1.54z
>
>
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count the 
> "full width segments for motorised traffic".


what is the definition for “full width”? Is a road with 1,8 width lanes=0? 
width=2.4? Given that maximum vehicle width is 2,50 it would seem sane to 
assume full width to be at least 3,00 m.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised 
> traffic.


I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this inconsistency in the 
definitions. 

What would you say about unsigned lanes? This is/was a frequent situation in 
Rome, where there are basically huge areas of asphalt (2-4 lanes) without lane 
markings, or only with lane markings before traffic lights (and people not 
respecting them oftentimes). In recent years they have begun to remove the 
ambiguity by painting more lanes and adding more “channeling” infrastructure 
like traffic islands and guards rails, but you can still find a lot of “wild” 
situations. Would you agree it is ok to estimate a number in the absence of 
markings, or would you prefer something like width=12 lanes=no (or maybe 1)?

e.g. 
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@41.888713,12.480457,180.97h,-11.28p,1.54z


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

> From: Marc Gemis  
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44
> 
> When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only 
> count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps 
> because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) define 
> them that way. So people started using the tag that way and data 
> consumers started writing software depending on that definition.
>
> Perhaps it would have been better to count cycle lanes as well, 
> but we did not. For me, this means that with a tag as popular 
> as lanes, we cannot alter the definition later on. It would mean 
> that we have to retag a lot of objects and that tagging habits 
> have to change. Furthermore, the tag would be useless for data 
> consumers until we declare all lanes-tags to be updated to the 
> new definition. 

THAT is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The definition of the lanes 
tag predates the introduction of the :lanes suffix by many years. It has always 
been defined as "number of full width lanes for motorized traffic. Given then 
widespread use of this tag it's basically impossible to simply change it's 
definition. 

This has also been specifically brought up _and a resolution decided upon_ 
during the proposal process for :lanes suffix:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag

Furthermore, I do not know anyone that, when shown this picture:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.218495,153.0061827,3a,66.8y,204.86h,78.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2DBegIPPNP78TmCjslUavA!2e0

and asked, "is that a 2 lane or a 4 lane street" would say that it's a 4 lane 
street.

Similar here:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.2305921,153.0252325,3a,66.8y,285.94h,79.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWt2KhVfIcF3-YzMzGE1xFQ!2e0

Nobody I know would tell me that is a 3 lane road.

Cheers,
Thorsten



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

 a deceleration/acceleration lane,
>>> i.e. the main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.
>>>
>>> · Parking lanes. Consider using parking:lane
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane>=* to provide
>>> further information.
>>>
>>> · Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=lane
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> for those.
>>>
>>> · Emergency [image: [W]] shoulder lanes
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)>. See shoulder
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder>=* for further
>>> details.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand
>>> traffic) would be tagged as:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cycleway=lane
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes
>>>
>>> vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> width:lanes:forward=1|3
>>>
>>> width:lanes:backward=1|3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing
>>> these tagged lanes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your
>>> cycle lanes…).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The
>>> lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the
>>> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different!
>>> (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the
>>> :lanes prefix tags by many years, and has been used that way all over the
>>> place. Mixing different definitions of the lanes key in different places,
>>> or even just different segments of the same road, is going to result in
>>> useless, unreliable data as a data consumer will have no way to
>>> differentiate what definition of lanes=count would apply.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_
>>> designated_lane_for_bicycles for an example of that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:30
>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My suggestion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cycleway=lane
>>>
>>> lanes=4
>>>
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>>
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>>
>>> motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>>
>>> motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not
>>> allowed out of the bike lane on a bike)
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rationale for this:  Sometimes things get complicated.  For example, how
>>> would you smash the following tag scenario into "don't include bike lanes
>>> in the lane count" schemes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cycleway=lane
>>>
>>> oneway=yes
>>>
>>> lanes=5
>>>
>>> turn:lanes=left;through|left;through|through|through|right
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|yes|designated|yes
>>>
>>> motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And sometimes the cycleway=* tag just can't deal with the situation at
>>> all, like when you have curbside bike lanes and the rest of the lanes are
>>> shared.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> access:lanes:backward=yes|yes|no
>>>
>>> access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|no
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|designated|designated
>>>
>>> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|designated|designated
>>>
>>> cycleway=lane
>>>
>>> highway=tertiary
>>>
>>> lanes:backward=3
>>>
>>> lanes:forward=3
>>>
>>> lanes=6
>>>
>>> name=South Greenwood Avenue
>>>
>>> turn:lanes:backward=left;through|through|through
>>>
>>> turn:lanes:forward=left;through|through|through
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two
>>> lanes for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each
>>> side. Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the
>>> motorized traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>>>
>>> My (basic) tagging would be:
>>>
>>> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
>>>
>>> cycleway:right=lane
>>>
>>> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
>>>
>>> cycleway:left=lane
>>>
>>> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>>>
>>> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I
>>> see no alternative
>>> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
>>> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>>>
>>> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I'll agree with all your tags, as ":lanes" is for all lanes, including
> cycle lanes.
> It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised
> traffic.
>

Right, but *why*?   I can't think of any reason for this, but I've already
named a lot of reasons why it greatly complicates tagging.  And fixing it
would be easy MapRoulette fodder.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

I'll agree with all your tags, as ":lanes" is for all lanes, including
cycle lanes.
It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised
traffic.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

> I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging
> as this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT
> analogous to the other excluded situations.  The wiki is wrong.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
>
>> If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.
>>
>>
>>
>> To quote the wiki for lanes:
>>
>>
>>
>> The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* 
>> [image:
>> Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>of a
>> road.
>>
>> The following lanes should be *included*:
>>
>> · General purpose [image: [W]] traffic lanes
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> suitable for vehicles wider than a
>> motorbike.
>>
>> · [image: [W]] Bus lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane>,
>> that are reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and
>> taxis. Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the
>> number of lanes for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.
>>
>> · [image: [W]] High-occupancy vehicle lanes
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> (sometimes
>> also called carpool lanes, commuter lanes, express lanes, transit lanes).
>> The number of such lanes could be tagged using lanes:hov=*.
>>
>> · Other lanes such as [image: Wikipedia-16px.png] spitsstroken
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>(nl) in the Netherlands or 
>> [image:
>> Wikipedia-16px.png] temporäre Standstreifen
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>(de) 
>> in
>> Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available to traffic at certain
>> restricted times, for example during the rush hour.
>>
>> · Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast
>> major roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See
>> turn <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn>=* for further
>> details about tagging turning lanes.
>>
>> And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
>>
>> · Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane,
>> i.e. the main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.
>>
>> · Parking lanes. Consider using parking:lane
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane>=* to provide
>> further information.
>>
>> · Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=lane
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> for those.
>>
>> · Emergency [image: [W]] shoulder lanes
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)>. See shoulder
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder>=* for further details.
>>
>>
>>
>> So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand
>> traffic) would be tagged as:
>>
>>
>>
>> cycleway=lane
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes
>>
>> vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes
>>
>> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
>>
>> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes
>>
>>
>>
>> When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:
>>
>>
>>
>> width:lanes:forward=1|3
>>
>> width:lanes:backward=1|3
>>
>>
>>
>> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing
>> these tagged lanes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle
>> lanes…).
>>
>>
>>
>> Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The
>> lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the
>> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different!
>> (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the
>> :lanes prefix tags by many years, and has been used that way all over the
>> place. Mixing different definitions of the lanes key in different places,
>> or even just different segments of the same road, is going to result in
&

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

OK, a little more thought on this.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:45 PM,  wrote:

> If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.
>


> The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes of a
> road.
>
> The following lanes should be *included*:
>
> · General purpose [image: [W]] traffic lanes
>  suitable for vehicles wider than a
> motorbike.
>
> · [image: [W]] Bus lanes ,
> that are reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and
> taxis. Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the
> number of lanes for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.
>
> · [image: [W]] High-occupancy vehicle lanes
>  (sometimes
> also called carpool lanes, commuter lanes, express lanes, transit lanes).
> The number of such lanes could be tagged using lanes:hov=*.
>
> · Other lanes such as [image: Wikipedia-16px.png] spitsstroken
> (nl) in the Netherlands or 
> [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] temporäre Standstreifen
> (de) 
> in
> Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available to traffic at certain
> restricted times, for example during the rush hour.
>
> · Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast
> major roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See
> turn =* for further details
> about tagging turning lanes.
>

I agree.  Because bus, HOV and taxi lanes are included because knowing
where they are and whether or not they can be used by a specific mode is
important, bicycle lanes should also be included.


> And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
>
> · Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e.
> the main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.
>
> · Parking lanes. Consider using parking:lane
> =* to provide
> further information.
>
> · Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
> =lane
>  for those.
>
> · Emergency [image: [W]] shoulder lanes
> . See shoulder
> =* for further details.
>
>
I agree with this mostly, except for the bike lane situation.

And in a related note, it would be nice to have a method to deal with
parking lanes that are *not* curb lanes, as this is the most common method
used in the US to create Dutch-style segregated cycleways (the bike lane is
along the curb, then on the side of the bike lane that's not against the
curb, you have a white flush median (theoretical gores on freeways are a
kind of white flush median, you're supposed to treat it like a curb in the
roadway), and on the other side of the flush median, you have the parking
lane.  But that's another can of worms and the situation isn't so
widespread as to be a serious problem (yet), unlike the weird exclusion of
bike lanes from bike lane tagging.  Tagging as separate roads feels
incorrect in this case (as bollards or other physical barriers tend to be
absent).


> So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand
> traffic) would be tagged as:
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> lanes=2
>
> vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes
>
> vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes
>

This breaks, because you're tagging for four lanes and setting your total
lanes to 2.


> When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:
>
>
>
> width:lanes:forward=1|3
>
> width:lanes:backward=1|3
>

This is a good idea, as older bicycle lanes tend to be significantly more
narrow than general access lanes.


> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing
> these tagged lanes.
>
>
>
> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle
> lanes…).
>

Right, I tend to use access:lanes as the basic rule since no other modes,
only bicycles, are allowed in bicycle lanes in Oklahoma (it's slightly more
lax in Oregon, where almost any nonmotorized mode is allowed, and in
California it's just a hot mess since bicycle lanes double as continuous
turn lanes for other modes).


> Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The
> lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the
> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different!
>

I honestly can't fathom why you would tag more lanes than the lane count,
is 

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 00:29  wrote:

> The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized
> traffic. This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle
> traffic on this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the
> details, or simply older software that doesn’t know about the :lanes suffix.
>
Conflating lane count with lane access is both inaccurate and confusing.

> If there are keys with the :lanes suffix present, then number of lanes
> specified by all of them must be the same, and the total number of lanes
> (including cycle lanes and such) is given by the number of lanes defined in
> the tags, there is no need to repeat the same number again in the
> lanes=count tag. If you simply make the lanes=count tag always represent
> the same number as the lanes specified in the :lanes suffix keys, then you
> could simply omit it completely, as it’s just redundant
>
Every editor that handles lane tagging will (quite correctly) ensure your
lane counts square up to the lanes tagging or loudly complain.

> Changing the meaning of the lanes=count tag after many millions of them
> have already been created makes the key useless as it can’t be relied on
> anymore.
>
I'd argue this has always been the case thanks to this glaring omission.
Just because someone doesn't think all lanes should count just because
bicycle thought that was a smart idea doesn't mean that it actually is, or
that leaving this information out makes lane guidance easier (it doesn't,
it makes it wrong).



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

See also:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag

 

(which is from the approved proposal that established the :lanes suffix).

 

From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> 
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 15:28
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized traffic. 
This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle traffic on 
this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the details, or simply 
older software that doesn’t know about the :lanes suffix.

 

If there are keys with the :lanes suffix present, then number of lanes 
specified by all of them must be the same, and the total number of lanes 
(including cycle lanes and such) is given by the number of lanes defined in the 
tags, there is no need to repeat the same number again in the lanes=count tag. 
If you simply make the lanes=count tag always represent the same number as the 
lanes specified in the :lanes suffix keys, then you could simply omit it 
completely, as it’s just redundant.

 

Changing the meaning of the lanes=count tag after many millions of them have 
already been created makes the key useless as it can’t be relied on anymore.

 

 

From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org> > 
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 14:56
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org 
<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging as 
this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT analogous 
to the other excluded situations.  The wiki is wrong.

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.

 

To quote the wiki for lanes:

 

The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of marked  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>  lanesof a road.

The following lanes should be included:

* General purpose   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> traffic lanes 
suitable for vehicles wider than a motorbike.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane> Bus lanes, that are 
reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and taxis. 
Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the number of lanes 
for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> 
High-occupancy vehicle lanes (sometimes also called carpool lanes, commuter 
lanes, express lanes, transit lanes). The number of such lanes could be tagged 
using lanes:hov=*.

* Other lanes such as  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>  
spitsstroken(nl) in the Netherlands or  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>  
temporäre Standstreifen(de) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are 
available to traffic at certain restricted times, for example during the rush 
hour.

* Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast major 
roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn> turn=* for further details about 
tagging turning lanes.

And the following lanes should be excluded:

* Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e. the 
main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.

* Parking lanes. Consider using  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane> parking:lane=* to 
provide further information.

* Bicycle lanes. Use the tag  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway> cycleway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> lane for those.

* Emergency   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)> shoulder 
lanes. See  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder> shoulder=* for 
further details.

 

So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand 
traffic) would be tagged as:

 

cycleway=lane

lanes=2

vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes

vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes

bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes

bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes

 

When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:

 

width:lanes:forward=1|3

width:lanes:backward=1|3

 

in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing these 
tagged lanes.

 

Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle 
lanes…).

 

Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized traffic. 
This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle traffic on 
this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the details, or simply 
older software that doesn’t know about the :lanes suffix.

 

If there are keys with the :lanes suffix present, then number of lanes 
specified by all of them must be the same, and the total number of lanes 
(including cycle lanes and such) is given by the number of lanes defined in the 
tags, there is no need to repeat the same number again in the lanes=count tag. 
If you simply make the lanes=count tag always represent the same number as the 
lanes specified in the :lanes suffix keys, then you could simply omit it 
completely, as it’s just redundant.

 

Changing the meaning of the lanes=count tag after many millions of them have 
already been created makes the key useless as it can’t be relied on anymore.

 

 

From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> 
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 14:56
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging as 
this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT analogous 
to the other excluded situations.  The wiki is wrong.

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.

 

To quote the wiki for lanes:

 

The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of marked  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>  lanesof a road.

The following lanes should be included:

* General purpose   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> traffic lanes 
suitable for vehicles wider than a motorbike.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane> Bus lanes, that are 
reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and taxis. 
Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the number of lanes 
for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> 
High-occupancy vehicle lanes (sometimes also called carpool lanes, commuter 
lanes, express lanes, transit lanes). The number of such lanes could be tagged 
using lanes:hov=*.

* Other lanes such as  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>  
spitsstroken(nl) in the Netherlands or  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>  
temporäre Standstreifen(de) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are 
available to traffic at certain restricted times, for example during the rush 
hour.

* Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast major 
roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn> turn=* for further details about 
tagging turning lanes.

And the following lanes should be excluded:

* Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e. the 
main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.

* Parking lanes. Consider using  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane> parking:lane=* to 
provide further information.

* Bicycle lanes. Use the tag  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway> cycleway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> lane for those.

* Emergency   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)> shoulder 
lanes. See  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder> shoulder=* for 
further details.

 

So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand 
traffic) would be tagged as:

 

cycleway=lane

lanes=2

vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes

vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes

bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes

bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes

 

When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:

 

width:lanes:forward=1|3

width:lanes:backward=1|3

 

in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing these 
tagged lanes.

 

Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle 
lanes…).

 

Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The lanes 
count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the number of 
entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different! (Which is maybe 
somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the :lanes prefix tags 
by many years, and has been used that way all over the place. Mixing different 
definitions of the lanes key in different places, or even just different 
segments of the same road, is going to result in useless, unreliable data as a 
data consumer will have no way to differentiate 

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging as
this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT
analogous to the other excluded situations.  The wiki is wrong.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.
>
>
>
> To quote the wiki for lanes:
>
>
>
> The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>of a
> road.
>
> The following lanes should be *included*:
>
> · General purpose [image: [W]] traffic lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> suitable for vehicles wider than a
> motorbike.
>
> · [image: [W]] Bus lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane>,
> that are reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and
> taxis. Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the
> number of lanes for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.
>
> · [image: [W]] High-occupancy vehicle lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> (sometimes
> also called carpool lanes, commuter lanes, express lanes, transit lanes).
> The number of such lanes could be tagged using lanes:hov=*.
>
> · Other lanes such as [image: Wikipedia-16px.png] spitsstroken
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>(nl) in the Netherlands or 
> [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] temporäre Standstreifen
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>(de) 
> in
> Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available to traffic at certain
> restricted times, for example during the rush hour.
>
> · Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast
> major roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See
> turn <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn>=* for further details
> about tagging turning lanes.
>
> And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
>
> · Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e.
> the main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.
>
> · Parking lanes. Consider using parking:lane
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane>=* to provide
> further information.
>
> · Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=lane
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> for those.
>
> · Emergency [image: [W]] shoulder lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)>. See shoulder
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder>=* for further details.
>
>
>
> So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand
> traffic) would be tagged as:
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> lanes=2
>
> vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes
>
> vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes
>
>
>
> When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:
>
>
>
> width:lanes:forward=1|3
>
> width:lanes:backward=1|3
>
>
>
> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing
> these tagged lanes.
>
>
>
> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle
> lanes…).
>
>
>
> Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The
> lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the
> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different!
> (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the
> :lanes prefix tags by many years, and has been used that way all over the
> place. Mixing different definitions of the lanes key in different places,
> or even just different segments of the same road, is going to result in
> useless, unreliable data as a data consumer will have no way to
> differentiate what definition of lanes=count would apply.)
>
>
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
> for an example of that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:30
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
>
>
>
> My suggestion:
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> lanes=4
>
> lanes:forward=2
>
> lanes:backward=2
>
> motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no
>

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[osm.tagging]

If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.

 

To quote the wiki for lanes:

 

The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of marked  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>  lanesof a road.

The following lanes should be included:

* General purpose   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> traffic lanes 
suitable for vehicles wider than a motorbike.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane> Bus lanes, that are 
reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and taxis. 
Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the number of lanes 
for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.

*   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> 
High-occupancy vehicle lanes (sometimes also called carpool lanes, commuter 
lanes, express lanes, transit lanes). The number of such lanes could be tagged 
using lanes:hov=*.

* Other lanes such as  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>  
spitsstroken(nl) in the Netherlands or  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>  
temporäre Standstreifen(de) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are 
available to traffic at certain restricted times, for example during the rush 
hour.

* Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast major 
roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn> turn=* for further details about 
tagging turning lanes.

And the following lanes should be excluded:

* Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e. the 
main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.

* Parking lanes. Consider using  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane> parking:lane=* to 
provide further information.

* Bicycle lanes. Use the tag  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway> cycleway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> lane for those.

* Emergency   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)> shoulder 
lanes. See  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder> shoulder=* for 
further details.

 

So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand 
traffic) would be tagged as:

 

cycleway=lane

lanes=2

vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes

vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes

bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes

bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes

 

When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:

 

width:lanes:forward=1|3

width:lanes:backward=1|3

 

in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing these 
tagged lanes.

 

Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle 
lanes…).

 

Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The lanes 
count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the number of 
entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different! (Which is maybe 
somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the :lanes prefix tags 
by many years, and has been used that way all over the place. Mixing different 
definitions of the lanes key in different places, or even just different 
segments of the same road, is going to result in useless, unreliable data as a 
data consumer will have no way to differentiate what definition of lanes=count 
would apply.)

 

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
 for an example of that.

 

 

From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> 
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

 

My suggestion:

 

cycleway=lane

lanes=4

lanes:forward=2

lanes:backward=2

motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no

motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no

bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not allowed 
out of the bike lane on a bike)

bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale for this:  Sometimes things get complicated.  For example, how would 
you smash the following tag scenario into "don't include bike lanes in the lane 
count" schemes?

 

cycleway=lane

oneway=yes

lanes=5

turn:lanes=left;through|left;through|through|through|right

bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|yes|designated|yes

motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes

 

And sometimes the cycleway=* tag just can't deal with the situation at all, 
like when you have curbside bike lanes and the rest of the lanes are shared.

 

access:lanes:backward=yes|yes|no

access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|no

bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|designated|designated

bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|designated|designated

cycleway=lane

highway=tertiary

lanes:backward=3

lanes:forward=3

lanes=6

name=South Green

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

My suggestion:

cycleway=lane
lanes=4
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=2
motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no
motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no
bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not
allowed out of the bike lane on a bike)
bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated

Rationale for this:  Sometimes things get complicated.  For example, how
would you smash the following tag scenario into "don't include bike lanes
in the lane count" schemes?

cycleway=lane
oneway=yes
lanes=5
turn:lanes=left;through|left;through|through|through|right
bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|yes|designated|yes
motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes

And sometimes the cycleway=* tag just can't deal with the situation at all,
like when you have curbside bike lanes and the rest of the lanes are shared.

access:lanes:backward=yes|yes|no
access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|no
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|designated|designated
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|designated|designated
cycleway=lane
highway=tertiary
lanes:backward=3
lanes:forward=3
lanes=6
name=South Greenwood Avenue
turn:lanes:backward=left;through|through|through
turn:lanes:forward=left;through|through|through


On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes
> for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side.
> Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized
> traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see
> no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Tobias Zwick]

The tagging as you described is correct. An alternative is to use simply

  cycleway=lane

or

  cycleway:left=lane
  cycleway:right=lane

if you want to be explicit about that there are lanes on both sides of
the street.

I venture to say that any data consumer that processes bicycle-data will
assume that a cycle lane is a oneway in the same direction as the
motorized traffic if nothing is specified and the road itself is not a
oneway. So, whether to explicitly tag that the lanes are oneways or not
will probably not make a big difference.



On 09/05/2018 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> 
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two
> lanes for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each
> side. Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the
> motorized traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
> 
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
> 
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I
> see no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
> 
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I would assume that in-carriageway cycle lanes (not separate cycle tracks)
are one-way by default, just like the general traffic lanes they are part
of. Certainly where I live, I do not feel the need to tag them as one-way.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Wed, 9 May 2018, 18:13 Volker Schmidt,  wrote:

>
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes
> for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side.
> Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized
> traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see
> no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging