Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

Seems you are confusing passing places [1], i.e. a short widening on a
road, with lanes for slow moving vehicles [2,3], which can have a
length of several kilometres.

[1]: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotland_Kinlochewe_SingleTrackRoad.jpg
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/43.80368/3.32584
[3]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/_XEbuAglW1MY1l6D-jk9rA
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 18:54, Jo  wrote:
>
> I have been ignoring bus bays for several years and I'm happy we now have a 
> way to tag them. These extra lanes are very similar, so I'd say that is the 
> way to go for mapping them. No need for a preset, you'll find that the double 
> split map mode in PT_Assistant is a lot more practical to split a way in 2 
> places at once.
>
> British English seems to use passing place. So what about?
>
> passing_place=right / left / both
>
> Where both is unlikely, of course.
>
> Polyglot
>
> Op do 13 sep. 2018 om 16:46 schreef Dave Swarthout :
>>
>> Tod writes:
>> >In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are 
>> >very short, basically just enough room for a >vehicle to pull over and stop 
>> >to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like 
>> >“Turn out 500 ft >ahead”.
>>
>> These are tagged in OSM, according to the Wiki, as highway=passing_place and 
>> the use of the tag is restricted to nodes. The restriction is probably 
>> because those places are so short and nodes, except for the problem of 
>> directionality, as you and others point out, do the job well enough. But 
>> that tag won't work in my case because these are actual separate lanes with 
>> a significant length. Clearly, some sort of definitive tagging for ways is 
>> needed.
>>
>> Consequently, I've been ignoring turnouts in my own work although I've 
>> always felt they should be mapped. I wanted to get things right before 
>> settling on a scenario, writing a short JOSM preset to increase efficiency, 
>> and then proceeding to tag them.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:15 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>>
>>> In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are 
>>> very short, basically just enough room for a vehicle to pull over and stop 
>>> to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like 
>>> “Turn out 500 ft ahead”.
>>>
>>> There are also “passing lane” signs for areas where an extra lane extends 
>>> long enough for slow vehicles to maintain their speed in the new right 
>>> lane. These are generally signed longer in advance, e.g. “passing lane 1 
>>> mi”.
>>>
>>> And on long grades like on the “grapevine” on I-5 between Bakersfield there 
>>> are slow vehicle lanes marked off with a solid white line that extend for 
>>> the full length of both up and down grades that are too steep for a loaded 
>>> HGV to handle at the normal flat land speed limit. All the ones I can think 
>>> of have reduced HGV speed limits.
>>>
>>> Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that some areas have one 
>>> or another of these features but not all three and are somehow assuming 
>>> that what they are familiar with covers all the cases. For myself, I add 
>>> slow vehicle lanes and passing lanes to the roadway along with any other 
>>> tagging (maxspeed:hgv, change:lanes, etc.) And for turn outs, I either 
>>> ignore them or put a node. Problem with a node is that the turn out is for 
>>> one direction of travel and nodes are not good for that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tod
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Kevin  wrote:
>>>
>>> Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing 
>>> lanes".  But that's usually only in reference to the left lane.  You 
>>> generally stay to the right except to pass.
>>>
>>> https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave Swarthout  
>>> wrote:

 >You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
 >appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
 >it if you're in the way?

 Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane, 
 running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle 
 which is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so 
 that those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term 
 "turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term, 
 as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".

 I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's 
 PT_Assistant plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. 
 I think the term slow_vehicle would work just fine.

 Dave

 On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  wrote:
>
> A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is 
> similar, albeit over a longer distance.
>
> 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Jo]

I have been ignoring bus bays for several years and I'm happy we now have a
way to tag them. These extra lanes are very similar, so I'd say that is the
way to go for mapping them. No need for a preset, you'll find that the
double split map mode in PT_Assistant is a lot more practical to split a
way in 2 places at once.

British English seems to use passing place. So what about?

passing_place=right / left / both

Where both is unlikely, of course.

Polyglot

Op do 13 sep. 2018 om 16:46 schreef Dave Swarthout :

> Tod writes:
> >In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are
> very short, basically just enough room for a >vehicle to pull over and stop
> to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like
> “Turn out 500 ft >ahead”.
>
> These are tagged in OSM, according to the Wiki, as highway=passing_place
> and the use of the tag is restricted to nodes. The restriction is probably
> because those places are so short and nodes, except for the problem of
> directionality, as you and others point out, do the job well enough. But
> that tag won't work in my case because these are actual separate lanes with
> a significant length. Clearly, some sort of definitive tagging for ways is
> needed.
>
> Consequently, I've been ignoring turnouts in my own work although I've
> always felt they should be mapped. I wanted to get things right before
> settling on a scenario, writing a short JOSM preset to increase efficiency,
> and then proceeding to tag them.
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:15 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>> In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are
>> very short, basically just enough room for a vehicle to pull over and stop
>> to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like
>> “Turn out 500 ft ahead”.
>>
>> There are also “passing lane” signs for areas where an extra lane extends
>> long enough for slow vehicles to maintain their speed in the new right
>> lane. These are generally signed longer in advance, e.g. “passing lane 1
>> mi”.
>>
>> And on long grades like on the “grapevine” on I-5 between Bakersfield
>> there are slow vehicle lanes marked off with a solid white line that extend
>> for the full length of both up and down grades that are too steep for a
>> loaded HGV to handle at the normal flat land speed limit. All the ones I
>> can think of have reduced HGV speed limits.
>>
>> Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that some areas have
>> one or another of these features but not all three and are somehow assuming
>> that what they are familiar with covers all the cases. For myself, I add
>> slow vehicle lanes and passing lanes to the roadway along with any other
>> tagging (maxspeed:hgv, change:lanes, etc.) And for turn outs, I either
>> ignore them or put a node. Problem with a node is that the turn out is for
>> one direction of travel and nodes are not good for that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tod
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Kevin  wrote:
>>
>> Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing
>> lanes".  But that's usually only in reference to the left lane.  You
>> generally stay to the right except to pass.
>>
>> https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
>>> >appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
>>> >it if you're in the way?
>>>
>>> Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane,
>>> running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle
>>> which is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so
>>> that those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term
>>> "turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term,
>>> as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".
>>>
>>> I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's
>>> PT_Assistant plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. I
>>> think the term slow_vehicle would work just fine.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  wrote:
>>>
 A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is
 similar, albeit over a longer distance.

 extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both
 ?

 If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split
 map mode of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.

 Polyglot

 Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel :

>
> > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing
> lane. It
> > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic
> to pass.
> > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5
> vehicles
> > must, at the first 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Tod writes:
>In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are
very short, basically just enough room for a >vehicle to pull over and stop
to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like
“Turn out 500 ft >ahead”.

These are tagged in OSM, according to the Wiki, as highway=passing_place
and the use of the tag is restricted to nodes. The restriction is probably
because those places are so short and nodes, except for the problem of
directionality, as you and others point out, do the job well enough. But
that tag won't work in my case because these are actual separate lanes with
a significant length. Clearly, some sort of definitive tagging for ways is
needed.

Consequently, I've been ignoring turnouts in my own work although I've
always felt they should be mapped. I wanted to get things right before
settling on a scenario, writing a short JOSM preset to increase efficiency,
and then proceeding to tag them.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:15 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are
> very short, basically just enough room for a vehicle to pull over and stop
> to allow others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like
> “Turn out 500 ft ahead”.
>
> There are also “passing lane” signs for areas where an extra lane extends
> long enough for slow vehicles to maintain their speed in the new right
> lane. These are generally signed longer in advance, e.g. “passing lane 1
> mi”.
>
> And on long grades like on the “grapevine” on I-5 between Bakersfield
> there are slow vehicle lanes marked off with a solid white line that extend
> for the full length of both up and down grades that are too steep for a
> loaded HGV to handle at the normal flat land speed limit. All the ones I
> can think of have reduced HGV speed limits.
>
> Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that some areas have
> one or another of these features but not all three and are somehow assuming
> that what they are familiar with covers all the cases. For myself, I add
> slow vehicle lanes and passing lanes to the roadway along with any other
> tagging (maxspeed:hgv, change:lanes, etc.) And for turn outs, I either
> ignore them or put a node. Problem with a node is that the turn out is for
> one direction of travel and nodes are not good for that.
>
> Cheers,
> Tod
>
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Kevin  wrote:
>
> Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing
> lanes".  But that's usually only in reference to the left lane.  You
> generally stay to the right except to pass.
>
> https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/
>
> Kevin
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> >You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
>> >appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
>> >it if you're in the way?
>>
>> Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane,
>> running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle
>> which is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so
>> that those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term
>> "turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term,
>> as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".
>>
>> I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's
>> PT_Assistant plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. I
>> think the term slow_vehicle would work just fine.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is
>>> similar, albeit over a longer distance.
>>>
>>> extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both
>>> ?
>>>
>>> If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map
>>> mode of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel :
>>>

 > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing
 lane. It
 > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to
 pass.
 > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5
 vehicles
 > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
 > anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the
 law
 > exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
 > "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.

 Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
 England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
 99% on hills.

 > Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway
 turnout
 > but it does the job.

 You say "turnout".  But physically, is it 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tod Fitch]

In California the narrow mountain roads will have “turn outs”. These are very 
short, basically just enough room for a vehicle to pull over and stop to allow 
others to pass. These are signed in advance with something like “Turn out 500 
ft ahead”.

There are also “passing lane” signs for areas where an extra lane extends long 
enough for slow vehicles to maintain their speed in the new right lane. These 
are generally signed longer in advance, e.g. “passing lane 1 mi”.

And on long grades like on the “grapevine” on I-5 between Bakersfield there are 
slow vehicle lanes marked off with a solid white line that extend for the full 
length of both up and down grades that are too steep for a loaded HGV to handle 
at the normal flat land speed limit. All the ones I can think of have reduced 
HGV speed limits.

Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that some areas have one or 
another of these features but not all three and are somehow assuming that what 
they are familiar with covers all the cases. For myself, I add slow vehicle 
lanes and passing lanes to the roadway along with any other tagging 
(maxspeed:hgv, change:lanes, etc.) And for turn outs, I either ignore them or 
put a node. Problem with a node is that the turn out is for one direction of 
travel and nodes are not good for that.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Kevin  wrote:
> 
> Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing lanes". 
>  But that's usually only in reference to the left lane.  You generally stay 
> to the right except to pass.
> 
> https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/ 
> 
> 
> Kevin
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave Swarthout  > wrote:
> >You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
> >appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
> >it if you're in the way?
> 
> Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane, 
> running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle which 
> is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so that 
> those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term "turnout" is 
> because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term, as in, "Slow 
> Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".
> 
> I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's PT_Assistant 
> plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. I think the term 
> slow_vehicle would work just fine.
> 
> Dave
> 
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  > wrote:
> A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is similar, 
> albeit over a longer distance.
> 
> extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both
>  ?
> 
> If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map mode 
> of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.
> 
> Polyglot
> 
> Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel  >:
> 
> > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane. It
> > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to pass.
> > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5 vehicles
> > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
> > anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the law
> > exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
> > "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.
> 
> Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
> England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
> 99% on hills.
> 
> > Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway turnout
> > but it does the job.
> 
> You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
> appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
> it if you're in the way?
> 
> Do any routers do anything?  An example of how the data would be used,
> or how you think it would be used in an ideal future might be
> illuminaing.   Perhaps one's car computer could notice from forward
> radar that there is obstructing traffic and query osmand and give you a
> notification that the road becomes multilane in some distance, so you
> can get ready to blink to get the obstructor to move over if they stay
> left?   In that case, I wonder about the difference between a change to
> two lanes (perhaps because the row is wide enough and the long-term plan
> is 2) and a specific place like you describe.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin]

Here in Georgia (USA) I believe we call these types of lanes "passing
lanes".  But that's usually only in reference to the left lane.  You
generally stay to the right except to pass.

https://www.dawsonnews.com/local/gdot-remove-hwy-53-passing-lane/

Kevin

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> >You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
> >appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
> >it if you're in the way?
>
> Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane,
> running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle
> which is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so
> that those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term
> "turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term,
> as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".
>
> I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's
> PT_Assistant plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. I
> think the term slow_vehicle would work just fine.
>
> Dave
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  wrote:
>
>> A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is
>> similar, albeit over a longer distance.
>>
>> extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_
>> let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both ?
>>
>> If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map
>> mode of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel :
>>
>>>
>>> > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing
>>> lane. It
>>> > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to
>>> pass.
>>> > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5
>>> vehicles
>>> > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
>>> > anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the
>>> law
>>> > exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
>>> > "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.
>>>
>>> Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
>>> England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
>>> 99% on hills.
>>>
>>> > Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway
>>> turnout
>>> > but it does the job.
>>>
>>> You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
>>> appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
>>> it if you're in the way?
>>>
>>> Do any routers do anything?  An example of how the data would be used,
>>> or how you think it would be used in an ideal future might be
>>> illuminaing.   Perhaps one's car computer could notice from forward
>>> radar that there is obstructing traffic and query osmand and give you a
>>> notification that the road becomes multilane in some distance, so you
>>> can get ready to blink to get the obstructor to move over if they stay
>>> left?   In that case, I wonder about the difference between a change to
>>> two lanes (perhaps because the row is wide enough and the long-term plan
>>> is 2) and a specific place like you describe.
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

>You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
>appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
>it if you're in the way?

Exactly. I explained this several posts ago. It is an additional lane,
running for perhaps a quarter mile, sometimes longer, that any vehicle
which is holding back some number of other vehicles is obligated to use so
that those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term
"turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term,
as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet".

I see polyglot is ready to add some sort of processing to JOSM's
PT_Assistant plugin if only we can decide what to call such lanes in OSM. I
think the term slow_vehicle would work just fine.

Dave

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM Jo  wrote:

> A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is
> similar, albeit over a longer distance.
>
> extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both
> ?
>
> If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map
> mode of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.
>
> Polyglot
>
> Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel :
>
>>
>> > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane.
>> It
>> > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to
>> pass.
>> > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5
>> vehicles
>> > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
>> > anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the law
>> > exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
>> > "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.
>>
>> Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
>> England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
>> 99% on hills.
>>
>> > Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway
>> turnout
>> > but it does the job.
>>
>> You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
>> appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
>> it if you're in the way?
>>
>> Do any routers do anything?  An example of how the data would be used,
>> or how you think it would be used in an ideal future might be
>> illuminaing.   Perhaps one's car computer could notice from forward
>> radar that there is obstructing traffic and query osmand and give you a
>> notification that the road becomes multilane in some distance, so you
>> can get ready to blink to get the obstructor to move over if they stay
>> left?   In that case, I wonder about the difference between a change to
>> two lanes (perhaps because the row is wide enough and the long-term plan
>> is 2) and a specific place like you describe.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Jo]

A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is similar,
albeit over a longer distance.

extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both
?

If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map
mode of JOSM's PT_Assistant plugin.

Polyglot

Op wo 12 sep. 2018 om 18:49 schreef Greg Troxel :

>
> > Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane.
> It
> > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to
> pass.
> > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5
> vehicles
> > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
> > anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the law
> > exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
> > "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.
>
> Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
> England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
> 99% on hills.
>
> > Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway
> turnout
> > but it does the job.
>
> You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
> appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
> it if you're in the way?
>
> Do any routers do anything?  An example of how the data would be used,
> or how you think it would be used in an ideal future might be
> illuminaing.   Perhaps one's car computer could notice from forward
> radar that there is obstructing traffic and query osmand and give you a
> notification that the road becomes multilane in some distance, so you
> can get ready to blink to get the obstructor to move over if they stay
> left?   In that case, I wonder about the difference between a change to
> two lanes (perhaps because the row is wide enough and the long-term plan
> is 2) and a specific place like you describe.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Greg Troxel]

> Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane. It
> is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to pass.
> In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5 vehicles
> must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
> anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the law
> exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
> "keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.

Sorry, didn't get that this is not climbing lane (my fault).   In New
England, extra lanes that one would associate with "slow vehicle" are
99% on hills.

> Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway turnout
> but it does the job.

You say "turnout".  But physically, is it just an additional lane that
appears, and (more or less) one is obligated to move right one lane into
it if you're in the way?

Do any routers do anything?  An example of how the data would be used,
or how you think it would be used in an ideal future might be
illuminaing.   Perhaps one's car computer could notice from forward
radar that there is obstructing traffic and query osmand and give you a
notification that the road becomes multilane in some distance, so you
can get ready to blink to get the obstructor to move over if they stay
left?   In that case, I wonder about the difference between a change to
two lanes (perhaps because the row is wide enough and the long-term plan
is 2) and a specific place like you describe.


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane. It
is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to pass.
In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5 vehicles
must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I doubt
anyone has ever been ticketed for this offense but nevertheless, the law
exists. Alaskan highways also have hill climbing lanes that are signed
"keep right except to pass". Those lanes are not the same as this one.

Perhaps "slow_moving" isn't the best term for this sort of highway turnout
but it does the job.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:59 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/09/18 21:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > Dave Swarthout  writes:
> >
> >> Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the
> >> longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations
> >> already in heavy use.
> >>
> >> Does anybody else have input on this?
> > I have significant discomfort with smv and a bit with slow_vehicle,
> > because hgv is a in OSM is defined as a vehicle with an allowable gross
> > weight (GVWR in US terms) over 3500 kg (that's not a bus or a passenger
> > car).  So a given vehicle is or isn't an hgv, and it doesn't change.
>
> I'm happier with slow_vehicle as I need to think less about what it means
> compared to smv.
>
> > A slow vehicle, on the other hand, is any vehicle, regardless of actual
> > and permitted weight, that is driving below the prevailing speed in the
> > right lane, or is about to be because of a hill.  A vehicle that could
> > be driven at an adequate speed, piloted by someone who chooses not to,
> > is still a slow vehicle, and an empty truck might well not be.
> >
> > So I would call it "climbing_lane", although I suppose there might be
> > such lanes not on hills.  A tag of "slow_vehicle" seems ok, because it
> > doesn't imply parallel structure with hgv.
>
> There may be lanes for going down steep hills too - where the grade may
> lead to vehicle run away if the speed is not kept down.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

On 12/09/18 21:44, Greg Troxel wrote:


Dave Swarthout  writes:


Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the
longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations
already in heavy use.

Does anybody else have input on this?

I have significant discomfort with smv and a bit with slow_vehicle,
because hgv is a in OSM is defined as a vehicle with an allowable gross
weight (GVWR in US terms) over 3500 kg (that's not a bus or a passenger
car).  So a given vehicle is or isn't an hgv, and it doesn't change.


I'm happier with slow_vehicle as I need to think less about what it means 
compared to smv.


A slow vehicle, on the other hand, is any vehicle, regardless of actual
and permitted weight, that is driving below the prevailing speed in the
right lane, or is about to be because of a hill.  A vehicle that could
be driven at an adequate speed, piloted by someone who chooses not to,
is still a slow vehicle, and an empty truck might well not be.

So I would call it "climbing_lane", although I suppose there might be
such lanes not on hills.  A tag of "slow_vehicle" seems ok, because it
doesn't imply parallel structure with hgv.


There may be lanes for going down steep hills too - where the grade may lead to 
vehicle run away if the speed is not kept down.



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Greg Troxel]

Dave Swarthout  writes:

> Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the
> longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations
> already in heavy use.
>
> Does anybody else have input on this?

I have significant discomfort with smv and a bit with slow_vehicle,
because hgv is a in OSM is defined as a vehicle with an allowable gross
weight (GVWR in US terms) over 3500 kg (that's not a bus or a passenger
car).  So a given vehicle is or isn't an hgv, and it doesn't change.

A slow vehicle, on the other hand, is any vehicle, regardless of actual
and permitted weight, that is driving below the prevailing speed in the
right lane, or is about to be because of a hill.  A vehicle that could
be driven at an adequate speed, piloted by someone who chooses not to,
is still a slow vehicle, and an empty truck might well not be.

So I would call it "climbing_lane", although I suppose there might be
such lanes not on hills.  A tag of "slow_vehicle" seems ok, because it
doesn't imply parallel structure with hgv.

I have seen roads that are often 1 lane and have a 5 mile section of 2
lanes.  But those are not really the same thing.


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the
longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations
already in heavy use.

Does anybody else have input on this?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> SMV seems to be a North American term, e.g. see:
>
> http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/vehicles/slow-moving-vehicle-sign.shtml
> http://safeny.ny.gov/media/SMV-broc4-09.pdf
>
> But i would be fine with slow_vehicle as well.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 18:01, Steve Doerr  wrote:
>
>> Let's scotch this idea of smv straightaway. Whereas PSV, HGV and LGV are
>> well-established abbreviations, at least in UK English, I've never come
>> across slow-moving vehicles referred to as SMVs - this seems to have been
>> made up on the fly in this thread. We don't really like abbreviations in
>> OSM anyway. As slow-moving_vehicle is a bit of a mouthful, I'd suggest
>> slow_vehicle as a reasonable tag to use. Or crawler.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/2018 13:07, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I guess the consensus here is that, even though I dislike it, I
>> must use the lanes approach. In my original tagging, I had invented a new
>> category of service road, service=slow_vehicle_turnout, but perhaps an
>> abbreviated form of slow_moving_vehicle would be more consistent and easier
>> in the end. In the example provided by SelfishSeahorse, he uses
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated (as well as its counterpart in lanes:forward)
>> and that seems consistent with other abbreviated tags, like hov and hgv so
>> I'll use that terminology in my tagging. Perhaps someone of you would like
>> to add the smv abbreviation and description to the Wiki.
>>
>> Thanks for the input and discussion,
>>
>> AlaskaDave
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:24 AM Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
>>> >> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
>>> >> the example in my last message.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before
>>> that you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping,
>>> places where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is
>>> getting to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint
>>> if not a repave since then).
>>>
>>> The states have had considerable leeway in how they mark their own
>>> highways (the Federal government has control only on the highways that
>>> it funds).  New York has used a single solid white line to mean 'lane
>>> crossing discouraged but not prohibited' for the 45 years that I've
>>> been driving here. Prohibited lane crossings have, for at least that
>>> long, been set off by double lines or by partial-barrier lines with
>>> the solid line toward the lane that must not be departed from.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that the meaning of a single solid yellow line has
>>> varied from 'crossing discouraged', to 'crossing forbidden but left
>>> turns permitted', to 'crossing prohibited'. The current drivers'
>>> manual states that they have the same regulatory effect as a double
>>> yellow line. (Left turns across a double yellow are permitted only
>>> when they can be accomplished without impeding traffic in either
>>> direction and only into private driveways, entrances and alleys.) The
>>> only single yellow center lines I've seen in the last couple of
>>> decades have been on private roads, where they mean, 'the owner was
>>> too cheap to shell out for enough paint for standard markings.'
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: Avast logo] 
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com 
>>
>>
>> <#m_-3902864256643922471_m_-3098846559126106569_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

SMV seems to be a North American term, e.g. see:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/vehicles/slow-moving-vehicle-sign.shtml
http://safeny.ny.gov/media/SMV-broc4-09.pdf

But i would be fine with slow_vehicle as well.

Regards
Markus



On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 18:01, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> Let's scotch this idea of smv straightaway. Whereas PSV, HGV and LGV are
> well-established abbreviations, at least in UK English, I've never come
> across slow-moving vehicles referred to as SMVs - this seems to have been
> made up on the fly in this thread. We don't really like abbreviations in
> OSM anyway. As slow-moving_vehicle is a bit of a mouthful, I'd suggest
> slow_vehicle as a reasonable tag to use. Or crawler.
>
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 11/09/2018 13:07, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> Okay, I guess the consensus here is that, even though I dislike it, I must
> use the lanes approach. In my original tagging, I had invented a new
> category of service road, service=slow_vehicle_turnout, but perhaps an
> abbreviated form of slow_moving_vehicle would be more consistent and easier
> in the end. In the example provided by SelfishSeahorse, he uses
> smv:lanes:forward=|designated (as well as its counterpart in lanes:forward)
> and that seems consistent with other abbreviated tags, like hov and hgv so
> I'll use that terminology in my tagging. Perhaps someone of you would like
> to add the smv abbreviation and description to the Wiki.
>
> Thanks for the input and discussion,
>
> AlaskaDave
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:24 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
>> >> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
>> >> the example in my last message.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before
>> that you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping,
>> places where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is
>> getting to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint
>> if not a repave since then).
>>
>> The states have had considerable leeway in how they mark their own
>> highways (the Federal government has control only on the highways that
>> it funds).  New York has used a single solid white line to mean 'lane
>> crossing discouraged but not prohibited' for the 45 years that I've
>> been driving here. Prohibited lane crossings have, for at least that
>> long, been set off by double lines or by partial-barrier lines with
>> the solid line toward the lane that must not be departed from.
>>
>> I seem to recall that the meaning of a single solid yellow line has
>> varied from 'crossing discouraged', to 'crossing forbidden but left
>> turns permitted', to 'crossing prohibited'. The current drivers'
>> manual states that they have the same regulatory effect as a double
>> yellow line. (Left turns across a double yellow are permitted only
>> when they can be accomplished without impeding traffic in either
>> direction and only into private driveways, entrances and alleys.) The
>> only single yellow center lines I've seen in the last couple of
>> decades have been on private roads, where they mean, 'the owner was
>> too cheap to shell out for enough paint for standard markings.'
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com 
>
> <#m_-3098846559126106569_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Steve Doerr]

Let's scotch this idea of smv straightaway. Whereas PSV, HGV and LGV are 
well-established abbreviations, at least in UK English, I've never come 
across slow-moving vehicles referred to as SMVs - this seems to have 
been made up on the fly in this thread. We don't really like 
abbreviations in OSM anyway. As slow-moving_vehicle is a bit of a 
mouthful, I'd suggest slow_vehicle as a reasonable tag to use. Or crawler.



Steve


On 11/09/2018 13:07, Dave Swarthout wrote:

Okay, I guess the consensus here is that, even though I dislike it, I 
must use the lanes approach. In my original tagging, I had invented a 
new category of service road, service=slow_vehicle_turnout, but 
perhaps an abbreviated form of slow_moving_vehicle would be more 
consistent and easier in the end. In the example provided by 
SelfishSeahorse, he uses smv:lanes:forward=|designated (as well as its 
counterpart in lanes:forward) and that seems consistent with other 
abbreviated tags, like hov and hgv so I'll use that terminology in my 
tagging. Perhaps someone of you would like to add the smv abbreviation 
and description to the Wiki.


Thanks for the input and discussion,

AlaskaDave

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:24 AM Kevin Kenny > wrote:


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

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

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

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

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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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



---
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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Okay, I guess the consensus here is that, even though I dislike it, I must
use the lanes approach. In my original tagging, I had invented a new
category of service road, service=slow_vehicle_turnout, but perhaps an
abbreviated form of slow_moving_vehicle would be more consistent and easier
in the end. In the example provided by SelfishSeahorse, he uses
smv:lanes:forward=|designated (as well as its counterpart in lanes:forward)
and that seems consistent with other abbreviated tags, like hov and hgv so
I'll use that terminology in my tagging. Perhaps someone of you would like
to add the smv abbreviation and description to the Wiki.

Thanks for the input and discussion,

AlaskaDave

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:24 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
> >> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in
> >> the example in my last message.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before that
> you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping, places
> where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is getting
> to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint if not
> a repave since then).
>
> The states have had considerable leeway in how they mark their own
> highways (the Federal government has control only on the highways that
> it funds).  New York has used a single solid white line to mean 'lane
> crossing discouraged but not prohibited' for the 45 years that I've
> been driving here. Prohibited lane crossings have, for at least that
> long, been set off by double lines or by partial-barrier lines with
> the solid line toward the lane that must not be departed from.
>
> I seem to recall that the meaning of a single solid yellow line has
> varied from 'crossing discouraged', to 'crossing forbidden but left
> turns permitted', to 'crossing prohibited'. The current drivers'
> manual states that they have the same regulatory effect as a double
> yellow line. (Left turns across a double yellow are permitted only
> when they can be accomplished without impeding traffic in either
> direction and only into private driveways, entrances and alleys.) The
> only single yellow center lines I've seen in the last couple of
> decades have been on private roads, where they mean, 'the owner was
> too cheap to shell out for enough paint for standard markings.'
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

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


/Tobi

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


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


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


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



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

Hi,

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


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


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


Tobi


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


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


Dave

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


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



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


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

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




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


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

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




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

Cheers,
Martin


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



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



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

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


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


/Tobi


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


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


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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

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

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

How do you figure?  Imprecise is better than inaccurate.

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

You're welcome!

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


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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

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

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

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

Thanks to all,

Dave

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

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

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

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

lanes=2

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

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

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

lanes=2

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

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 12:15, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the start of 
> a new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules lents'. There 
> is no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at 130 you may come 
> up behind a truck very quickly, there is no indication that the standard keep 
> to the right unless overtaking doesn't apply. [...]

The 60 km/h are not indicated on the road sign, but in the 'Code de la
route' (highway code):

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI06842322=LEGITEXT06074228

The second section is translated into English as follows: 'For the
purposes of this article, the term slow vehicles refers to vehicles
that cannot travel at a speed exceeding 60 km/h on the road section in
question.'

But because our good practice guidelines recommend to not map local
legislation, this doesn't seem to matter, and smv:lanes=||designated
should be fine. (I wouldn't even tag smv:lanes=no|yes|designated
because of the same guideline.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

On 8 September 2018 21:06:11 CEST, SelfishSeahorse  
wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving
>vehicle).  Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage
>Patch climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
>
>This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
>defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
>or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
>USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?
>
The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the start of a 
new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules lents'. There is 
no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at 130 you may come up 
behind a truck very quickly, there is no indication that the standard keep to 
the right unless overtaking doesn't apply. The offside (3rd) lane will have a 
minimum speed, usually 100, posted. At the top the vehicules lents lane becomes 
lane 1 and lanes 2 and 3 become lane 2. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

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

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 8 September 2018 00:24:50 CEST, Dave Swarthout  
wrote:
>The situation in the video is the one for which the tag passing_place
>was
>invented. I think the name is misleading for the reasons I've stated
>before.  I agree that such places are perhaps best described by a node,
>as
>demonstrated in the Wiki definition but this situation is, I think,
>considerably different from the turnout lanes I'm trying to model. The
>passing places in the video and Rule 155 are actually places where cars
>that move into them are there to be passed; they are not places where
>one
>passes other vehicles. It's a subtle difference in implied meaning. I
>was
>aware of this difference when I tagged the turnout lanes originally and
>felt it was a poor fit to my scenario but I did it because there were
>no
>other alternatives offered in the Wiki. I don't want to fight what
>would
>surely be an uphill battle to redefine passing_place to suit my
>preference
>especially knowing now, thanks to Philip, that such language is
>enshrined
>in the UK Highway Code.
>
>I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
>slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to
>drivers
>using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus:
>"Turnout
>lane ahead in 1000 meters". Simple logic and unambiguous tagging will
>make
>that easier than figuring out that a short multi-lane segment of a
>given
>highway actually contains a lane dedicated for vehicles to use so they
>can
>be passed. But, hey, I'm not a routing expert. Maybe the complex
>tagging
>using lanes presents no particular problem for routing software, I
>dunno.
>
>Dave
>
>
>On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:21 AM Philip Barnes 
>wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/2018 12:37, Steve Doerr wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least,
>the
>> > reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions,
>so
>> > it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as
>> > well, more often in fact).
>> >
>> Not strictly true, passing places in England, Scotland and Wales are
>> also intended to allow faster traffic to overtake.
>>
>> It is covered by highway code rule 155 states "If you see a vehicle
>> coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into
>a
>> passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your
>> right."
>>
>>
>>
>https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
>>
>> It reminded me of a public information film from a while back
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Swarthout
>Homer, Alaska
>Chiang Mai, Thailand
>Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

-- 
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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Tom Pfeifer said:
>What Martin means is, it depends on physical separation. If the lane is
physically separated e.g. by
>a barrier being at least a kerb, highway=service + service=* is fine. If
not, the lane tagging comes
>in, and we have an established tagging style for lane properties.
-
I see no requirement that service ways like I'm modeling be
physically separated by some sort of barrier. I have mapped hundreds of
service roads that have no physical separation from the highways they
intersect, abut, or run parallel to. The Wiki defines service roads in
general terms only and it seems like these turnouts would fit into the Wiki
definition.

SelfishSeahorse raises a point about different definitions of "slow moving"
then asks whether it should be our problem. No, it isn't nor is it
important for this discussion.

Dave

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving
> vehicle).  Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch
> climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
>
> This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
> defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
> or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
> USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving vehicle).  
> Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch climb) do 
> something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.

This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 08.09.2018 01:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think that 
your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least messy 
or complicated way of doing it?



if these are lanes it would not be acceptable, but if there’s a proper 
carriageway on its own it is the way to go.


What Martin means is, it depends on physical separation. If the lane is physically separated e.g. by 
a barrier being at least a kerb, highway=service + service=* is fine. If not, the lane tagging comes 
in, and we have an established tagging style for lane properties.


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:20 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
>> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
>> using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus: "Turnout
>> lane ahead in 1000 meters". Simple logic and unambiguous tagging will make
>> that easier than figuring out that a short multi-lane segment of a given
>> highway actually contains a lane dedicated for vehicles to use so they can
>> be passed.
>>
>
> I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think
> that your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest,
> least messy or complicated way of doing it?
>
> It will render as a road & will show up differently to the highway you're
> following, which achieves the aim. It may not be a perfect match for what
> is on the ground or the best theoretical solution, but, as an old military
> adage put's it "If it's a stupid idea & it works, then it's not a stupid
> idea"! :-)
>
>
Too specific a situation, think a little more generally here.

I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving vehicle).
Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch climb) do
something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

If the short 'passing_place' is tagged the same as a longer lane .. then 
how is it distinguished?


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


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


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



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

Hi,

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


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


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


Tobi


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


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


Dave

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


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



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


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

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




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


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

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




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

Cheers,
Martin


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



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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

On 08/09/18 09:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think that 
your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least messy 
or complicated way of doing it?


if these are lanes it would not be acceptable, but if there’s a proper 
carriageway on its own it is the way to go.




How would it be tagged if it is, say, a 3 lane one way road with one lane 
marked for slow vehicles?

I think there is one of these near me - the 'slow lane' is compulsory for some 
vehicles IIRC.

At the moment it is simply tagged as a 3 lane one way section with surrounding 
2 lane one way sections.


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think 
> that your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least 
> messy or complicated way of doing it?


if these are lanes it would not be acceptable, but if there’s a proper 
carriageway on its own it is the way to go.


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
> using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus: "Turnout
> lane ahead in 1000 meters". Simple logic and unambiguous tagging will make
> that easier than figuring out that a short multi-lane segment of a given
> highway actually contains a lane dedicated for vehicles to use so they can
> be passed.
>

I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think
that your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest,
least messy or complicated way of doing it?

It will render as a road & will show up differently to the highway you're
following, which achieves the aim. It may not be a perfect match for what
is on the ground or the best theoretical solution, but, as an old military
adage put's it "If it's a stupid idea & it works, then it's not a stupid
idea"! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

The situation in the video is the one for which the tag passing_place was
invented. I think the name is misleading for the reasons I've stated
before.  I agree that such places are perhaps best described by a node, as
demonstrated in the Wiki definition but this situation is, I think,
considerably different from the turnout lanes I'm trying to model. The
passing places in the video and Rule 155 are actually places where cars
that move into them are there to be passed; they are not places where one
passes other vehicles. It's a subtle difference in implied meaning. I was
aware of this difference when I tagged the turnout lanes originally and
felt it was a poor fit to my scenario but I did it because there were no
other alternatives offered in the Wiki. I don't want to fight what would
surely be an uphill battle to redefine passing_place to suit my preference
especially knowing now, thanks to Philip, that such language is enshrined
in the UK Highway Code.

I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus: "Turnout
lane ahead in 1000 meters". Simple logic and unambiguous tagging will make
that easier than figuring out that a short multi-lane segment of a given
highway actually contains a lane dedicated for vehicles to use so they can
be passed. But, hey, I'm not a routing expert. Maybe the complex tagging
using lanes presents no particular problem for routing software, I dunno.

Dave


On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:21 AM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On 06/09/2018 12:37, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
> >
> > Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least, the
> > reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions, so
> > it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as
> > well, more often in fact).
> >
> Not strictly true, passing places in England, Scotland and Wales are
> also intended to allow faster traffic to overtake.
>
> It is covered by highway code rule 155 states "If you see a vehicle
> coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a
> passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your
> right."
>
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
>
> It reminded me of a public information film from a while back
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

On 06/09/2018 12:37, Steve Doerr wrote:



Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least, the 
reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions, so 
it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as 
well, more often in fact).


Not strictly true, passing places in England, Scotland and Wales are 
also intended to allow faster traffic to overtake.


It is covered by highway code rule 155 states "If you see a vehicle 
coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a 
passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right."


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

It reminded me of a public information film from a while back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

Hi,

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


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


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


Tobi


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


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


Dave

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


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



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


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

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




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


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

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




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

Cheers,
Martin


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



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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Steve Doerr]

On 05/09/2018 09:41, Warin wrote:

On 05/09/18 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:





You can also “pass” an obstacle that stands still in English,


Close .. you may go past a house/school/shop. Not 'pass' a house/etc.



Sure you can. 'We passed the hospital on the way here' is perfectly good 
English.



Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least, the 
reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions, so 
it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as 
well, more often in fact).



--

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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[John Sturdy]

I think of a lane added on the nearside (kerb side) of the road for slow
vehicles going uphill as a "crawler lane", and to me "passing place" is
meant for waiting for oncoming traffic to pass on a road too narrow for
two-way simultaneous use (and is typically short enough to represent with a
node).  I think what Dave describes is closest to a crawler lane.

__John


On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:33 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Sep 2018, at 12:40, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> >
> > The wiki should be changed to allow passing places to be mapped as ways,
> not sure why the node restriction was added but it seems unnecessary.
>
>
>
> if the property that a road has a passing place, is added to the road it
> means fragmentation of the road (we do it elsewhere, it’s not a showstopper
> but it isn’t beautiful either)
> For long passing places a way would make more sense
>
>
>
> >
> > The photo shows a wider bit of road, not a signed passing place. I would
> only map a signed passing place using the passing place tag.
>
>
> according to the wiki there is no requirement of a sign: “location of a
> widening on a road allowing oncoming vehicles to pass each other, or
> allowing slower traffic to be passed if said slower vehicle halts at the
> passing place. Also known as a turnout.”
>
>
> 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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Sep 2018, at 12:40, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> The wiki should be changed to allow passing places to be mapped as ways, not 
> sure why the node restriction was added but it seems unnecessary. 



if the property that a road has a passing place, is added to the road it means 
fragmentation of the road (we do it elsewhere, it’s not a showstopper but it 
isn’t beautiful either)
For long passing places a way would make more sense 



> 
> The photo shows a wider bit of road, not a signed passing place. I would only 
> map a signed passing place using the passing place tag.


according to the wiki there is no requirement of a sign: “location of a 
widening on a road allowing oncoming vehicles to pass each other, or allowing 
slower traffic to be passed if said slower vehicle halts at the passing place. 
Also known as a turnout.”


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

Signed passing places do not always require a vehicle to stop. Particularly on 
single track roads in Scotland they can be hundreds of metres long such that 
vehicles passing can do so without slowing.

The wiki should be changed to allow passing places to be mapped as ways, not 
sure why the node restriction was added but it seems unnecessary. 

The photo shows a wider bit of road, not a signed passing place. I would only 
map a signed passing place using the passing place tag. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

 
-- 
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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Those descriptions I mentioned are in reference to driving. Yes, you can
pass a house but when you legally pass (or overtake) a car on a highway in
the U.S. you always pass on the left. I used those examples to justify my
reluctance to redefine passing_place to describe these special sections of
highway, turnouts or pullouts, that move slow traffic off to the right so
other vehicles can pass them on their left.

In fact, that's also another reason I resist using the lanes structure
suggested by others: how does one determine that those lanes are turnouts.
IMO, in either scheme, the word "turnout" must be used. Why not make it
simple (using the famous K.I.S.S. rationale), and just draw that extra lane
as a separate way, a service=turnout or, better but bulkier, as a
service=slow_vehicle_turnout ?

That's the direction I'm leaning toward at the moment.

Dave





On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/09/18 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I understand the word as you can pull out (on the right), so that others
> can pass you (on the left) but also: two vehicles can pass each other on an
> otherwise too narrow road.
>
> "Pull out" as an expression can mean to be removed from the mainstream,
> the normal flow.
> Of course it has other meanings too.
>
> > You can also “pass” an obstacle that stands still in English,
>
> Close .. you may go past a house/school/shop. Not 'pass' a house/etc.
>
> >   or am I misguided?
>
> English is not a very well behaved language ... like OSM tags :)
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

On 05/09/18 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:




I understand the word as you can pull out (on the right), so that others can 
pass you (on the left) but also: two vehicles can pass each other on an 
otherwise too narrow road.


"Pull out" as an expression can mean to be removed from the mainstream, the 
normal flow.
Of course it has other meanings too.


You can also “pass” an obstacle that stands still in English,


Close .. you may go past a house/school/shop. Not 'pass' a house/etc.


  or am I misguided?


English is not a very well behaved language ... like OSM tags :)



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Sep 2018, at 03:13, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure modifying its definition to include ways would be a good idea.


I agree and have changed my mind, nodes only is ok for passing places 



> In addition, the term "passing" or, in the EU, "overtaking", implies that the 
> passing vehicle does so on the left (U.S.) while these turnouts are always on 
> the right.



I understand the word as you can pull out (on the right), so that others can 
pass you (on the left) but also: two vehicles can pass each other on an 
otherwise too narrow road.
You can also “pass” an obstacle that stands still in English, or am I misguided?

cheers,
Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:15 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

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

I'd say at least a quarter mile long.  On long sections of I 82 in
Washington and I 5 in California, they famously have them for many
kilometers going over the Cabbage Patch and going over the Grapevine.
Mostly because any RVs or big rigs climbing are going to be
weight-to-effective-power competitive with a bicycle going up them, the
speed difference can be quite dramatic.

I'm still in favor of going with treating them as any other lane, maybe
tagging for the restrictions in place (like I 82 being
hgv=no|yes|designated where the rightmost lane is a marked slow vehicle
lane).  I'm not sure there's really a way to accurately tag for the
single-white "cross with extreme caution" line as opposed to the double
white "no lane change" or white and broken white "lane change only in one
direction" lines...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

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

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

Dave

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

> On 04/09/18 21:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> 2018-09-04 12:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
>
>>
>> Summarizing recent comments:
>> Martin wrote:
>> > what’s wrong with passing place? Seems to describe the same thing
>>
>> I thought so too until I noticed that the Wiki says passing_place is used
>> for nodes only, using logic that escapes me, so I began searching for
>> another method. I also considered modifying that definition so it includes
>> ways but was reluctant to start that battle even though that still seems a
>> good solution.
>>
>
>
>
> I would be in favor of adding the possibility to tag highway=passing_place
> on ways, there is already a tiny fraction tagged on ways (although the
> percentage currently makes it clear they are outliers). There's a general
> problem with using nodes for features like these: they don't have a
> direction, so you can't state where the widening takes place.
>
>
> Passing places are not long.
> Most of them are just long enough to squeeze in a car and caravan ...
> just.
> You are supposed to come to a complete stop to let others pass in either
> direction.
> They are usually on single lane, two way roads.
>
> So a passing place .. you have to stop in it. You cannot keep moving as
> you would with any distance of extra lane.
>
>
>
> For the lanes approach: I would only use this if the place has some length
> (more than 5-10 meters you may typically find on a track) AND if there are
> lane markings (general requirement for lanes).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

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



2018-09-04 12:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout >:



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

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




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


Passing places are not long.
Most of them are just long enough to squeeze in a car and caravan ... just.
You are supposed to come to a complete stop to let others pass in either 
direction.

They are usually on single lane, two way roads.

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




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


Cheers,
Martin


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



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-04 12:42 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

>
> Summarizing recent comments:
> Martin wrote:
> > what’s wrong with passing place? Seems to describe the same thing
>
> I thought so too until I noticed that the Wiki says passing_place is used
> for nodes only, using logic that escapes me, so I began searching for
> another method. I also considered modifying that definition so it includes
> ways but was reluctant to start that battle even though that still seems a
> good solution.
>



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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

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

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

Marc suggests another lanes scheme that has some usage in bus lanes.
Although using the lanes logic is more complicated than what I seek, if
that scheme is in use on bus routes then maybe that's the best, I dunno. It
requires splitting the main way twice and adding 3 separate sets of tags to
each resultant section similar to this set:

lanes=2
lanes:turnout:=1
turnout:lanes=yes   (?)

Again, I see this as a good structure but it seems overly complicated to
describe this simple lane.

Markus wrote:
>I would neither use a lane key nor a separate highway=service way, because
slow vehicle turnouts aren't lanes for moving traffic and because a
separate highway >way would give the wrong impression that the turnout were
physically separated from the other lanes.

I agree that adding the turnout as a separate service highway might give
the wrong impression because the ways are not actually separated, however,
IMO it does model reality sufficiently to justify its use. Also, the
turnout lane does move traffic; it just moves it slower than the main
highway.

Again, I'm looking for a *simpler" method of tagging these short sections.
But if we determine the lanes model, either the one suggested by Marc, or
earlier by Kevin, is best suited, I'll go with that.

Dave


On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:50 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Sep 2018, at 09:35, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd propose to tag the section of the road with the turnout (or
> alternatively just a node) turnout:=yes.
>
>
> what’s wrong with passing place? Seems to describe the same thing
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Sep 2018, at 09:35, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> I'd propose to tag the section of the road with the turnout (or alternatively 
> just a node) turnout:=yes.


what’s wrong with passing place? Seems to describe the same thing 


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Marc Gemis]

I would use both lanes=x+1 (where x is the number of lanes without
turnout section)
and something like

 turnout:lanes=no|no|yes|yes (if there are 2 turn out lanes)
and
lanes:turnout=1 (or 2, or 3)

this is similar to tagging deficated bus lanes
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:37 AM SelfishSeahorse
 wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd propose to tag the section of the road with the turnout (or alternatively 
> just a node) turnout:=yes.
>
> I would neither use a lane key nor a separate highway=service way, because 
> slow vehicle turnouts aren't lanes for moving traffic and because a separate 
> highway way would give the wrong impression that the turnout were physically 
> separated from the other lanes.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 12:31 Dave Swarthout,  wrote:
>>
>> I'm still trying to cook up a scheme where those pullouts can be added as a 
>> way and then tagged in a manner that reveals their purpose and function. The 
>> use of lanes may indeed be the most correct approach but to my way of 
>> thinking, it doesn't communicate the purpose of the "extra" lane very well.
>> Because the turnouts use a separate lane, are very short in length, and are 
>> not really thoroughfares in the usual sense, might it be logical to tag them 
>> as service roads? As an example:
>> highway=service
>> service=slow_vehicle_turnout (or slow_vehicle_lane)
>> lanes=1
>> oneway=yes
>>
>> Opinions? Observations?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dave Swarthout  
>>> wrote:
>>> > >We also have the occasional spot like
>>> > >https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>>> > >There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
>>> > >getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic
>>> >
>>> > My case is almost identical to the above illustration, except to 
>>> > substitute the words "slow moving vehicles" for "left turning traffic". I 
>>> > reckon I could use the lanes tagging but like Kevin, I have many "other 
>>> > fish to fry" which is why I'm still looking for a simple 
>>> > one-tag-fixes-all solution.
>>>
>>> My guess is that the slow-moving traffic is supposed to pull over into
>>> the outer lane, allowing the parade behind to pass on the inside,
>>> rather than the through traffic passing on the outer lane?  That's
>>> like my first case, except that in that particular case, the climbing
>>> lane goes on for several km (the highway is gaining a few hundred
>>> metres of elevation up the Helderberg escarpment). We do have ones
>>> that are more like pullouts rather than long lanes. There's a shorter
>>> one on the westbound carriageway in
>>> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8267325.730037971,5268580.377261018,-8265722.941101252,5269523.896828834=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>>>
>>> By contrast, although the section is short, the outer westbound lane
>>> in 
>>> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8244541.671667748,5187738.535180551,-8244140.974433658,5187974.415072453=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>>> is NOT a climbing lane. It's set off by a single broken line, and
>>> traffic is expected to keep to the right except to pass.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi!

I'd propose to tag the section of the road with the turnout (or
alternatively just a node) turnout:=yes.

I would neither use a lane key nor a separate highway=service way, because
slow vehicle turnouts aren't lanes for moving traffic and because a
separate highway way would give the wrong impression that the turnout were
physically separated from the other lanes.

Regards
Markus

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 12:31 Dave Swarthout,  wrote:

> I'm still trying to cook up a scheme where those pullouts can be added as
> a way and then tagged in a manner that reveals their purpose and function.
> The use of lanes may indeed be the most correct approach but to my way of
> thinking, it doesn't communicate the purpose of the "extra" lane very well.
> Because the turnouts use a separate lane, are very short in length, and
> are not really thoroughfares in the usual sense, might it be logical to tag
> them as service roads? As an example:
> highway=service
> service=slow_vehicle_turnout (or slow_vehicle_lane)
> lanes=1
> oneway=yes
>
> Opinions? Observations?
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> > >We also have the occasional spot like
>> > >
>> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>> > >There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
>> > >getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic
>> >
>> > My case is almost identical to the above illustration, except to
>> substitute the words "slow moving vehicles" for "left turning traffic". I
>> reckon I could use the lanes tagging but like Kevin, I have many "other
>> fish to fry" which is why I'm still looking for a simple one-tag-fixes-all
>> solution.
>>
>> My guess is that the slow-moving traffic is supposed to pull over into
>> the outer lane, allowing the parade behind to pass on the inside,
>> rather than the through traffic passing on the outer lane?  That's
>> like my first case, except that in that particular case, the climbing
>> lane goes on for several km (the highway is gaining a few hundred
>> metres of elevation up the Helderberg escarpment). We do have ones
>> that are more like pullouts rather than long lanes. There's a shorter
>> one on the westbound carriageway in
>>
>> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8267325.730037971,5268580.377261018,-8265722.941101252,5269523.896828834=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>>
>> By contrast, although the section is short, the outer westbound lane
>> in
>> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8244541.671667748,5187738.535180551,-8244140.974433658,5187974.415072453=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>> is NOT a climbing lane. It's set off by a single broken line, and
>> traffic is expected to keep to the right except to pass.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:38, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> @Graeme wrote:
> I see the phrase overtaking lane as more like an extra lane for climbing
> hills, or a lane dedicated to passing, but such lanes are not "separate"
> like the turnouts in my examples.
>

Ahh, yes, of course - the old international definitions again, hey! :-)

You are correct - our "overtaking lanes" are like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0015042,153.2212579,3a,75y,152.34h,102.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svJ1u7K8Ak12ihvEzmRVWvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
so obviously a bit different to your's.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

@Graeme wrote:
 "overtaking_lane" perhaps?

I see the phrase overtaking lane as more like an extra lane for climbing
hills, or a lane dedicated to passing, but such lanes are not "separate"
like the turnouts in my examples. These slow vehicle turnouts are a
short-length "extra" lane on the right side. It's not so much a "passing
lane" as it is a lane where one can be intentionally passed.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dave

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 20:31, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Because the turnouts use a separate lane, are very short in length, and
>> are not really thoroughfares in the usual sense, might it be logical to tag
>> them as service roads? As an example:
>> highway=service
>> service=slow_vehicle_turnout (or slow_vehicle_lane)
>> lanes=1
>> oneway=yes
>>
>
> That would certainly work Dave
>
> "overtaking_lane" perhaps?
>
> I know they don't have one posted (at least not out here) but would
> tagging this lane with a max_speed say 10 kph lower than the "main road"
> help?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 20:31, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> Because the turnouts use a separate lane, are very short in length, and
> are not really thoroughfares in the usual sense, might it be logical to tag
> them as service roads? As an example:
> highway=service
> service=slow_vehicle_turnout (or slow_vehicle_lane)
> lanes=1
> oneway=yes
>

That would certainly work Dave

"overtaking_lane" perhaps?

I know they don't have one posted (at least not out here) but would tagging
this lane with a max_speed say 10 kph lower than the "main road" help?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

I'm still trying to cook up a scheme where those pullouts can be added as a
way and then tagged in a manner that reveals their purpose and function.
The use of lanes may indeed be the most correct approach but to my way of
thinking, it doesn't communicate the purpose of the "extra" lane very well.
Because the turnouts use a separate lane, are very short in length, and are
not really thoroughfares in the usual sense, might it be logical to tag
them as service roads? As an example:
highway=service
service=slow_vehicle_turnout (or slow_vehicle_lane)
lanes=1
oneway=yes

Opinions? Observations?

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> > >We also have the occasional spot like
> > >
> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
> > >There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
> > >getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic
> >
> > My case is almost identical to the above illustration, except to
> substitute the words "slow moving vehicles" for "left turning traffic". I
> reckon I could use the lanes tagging but like Kevin, I have many "other
> fish to fry" which is why I'm still looking for a simple one-tag-fixes-all
> solution.
>
> My guess is that the slow-moving traffic is supposed to pull over into
> the outer lane, allowing the parade behind to pass on the inside,
> rather than the through traffic passing on the outer lane?  That's
> like my first case, except that in that particular case, the climbing
> lane goes on for several km (the highway is gaining a few hundred
> metres of elevation up the Helderberg escarpment). We do have ones
> that are more like pullouts rather than long lanes. There's a shorter
> one on the westbound carriageway in
>
> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8267325.730037971,5268580.377261018,-8265722.941101252,5269523.896828834=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>
> By contrast, although the section is short, the outer westbound lane
> in
> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8244541.671667748,5187738.535180551,-8244140.974433658,5187974.415072453=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
> is NOT a climbing lane. It's set off by a single broken line, and
> traffic is expected to keep to the right except to pass.
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> >We also have the occasional spot like
> >https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
> >There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
> >getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic
>
> My case is almost identical to the above illustration, except to substitute 
> the words "slow moving vehicles" for "left turning traffic". I reckon I could 
> use the lanes tagging but like Kevin, I have many "other fish to fry" which 
> is why I'm still looking for a simple one-tag-fixes-all solution.

My guess is that the slow-moving traffic is supposed to pull over into
the outer lane, allowing the parade behind to pass on the inside,
rather than the through traffic passing on the outer lane?  That's
like my first case, except that in that particular case, the climbing
lane goes on for several km (the highway is gaining a few hundred
metres of elevation up the Helderberg escarpment). We do have ones
that are more like pullouts rather than long lanes. There's a shorter
one on the westbound carriageway in
https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8267325.730037971,5268580.377261018,-8265722.941101252,5269523.896828834=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache

By contrast, although the section is short, the outer westbound lane
in 
https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8244541.671667748,5187738.535180551,-8244140.974433658,5187974.415072453=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
is NOT a climbing lane. It's set off by a single broken line, and
traffic is expected to keep to the right except to pass.

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

>We also have the occasional spot like
>
https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
>There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
>getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic

My case is almost identical to the above illustration, except to substitute
the words "slow moving vehicles" for "left turning traffic". I reckon I
could use the lanes tagging but like Kevin, I have many "other fish to fry"
which is why I'm still looking for a simple one-tag-fixes-all solution.

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:22 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 2:22 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 12:30 Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >> I agree that those are two different critters and that using the
> passing _place tag is not the best way to handle this. But, aside from
> splitting the highway into lanes:forward, lanes:backward, etc., how should
> such a turnout be tagged? That's the question that led to this thread.
> >>
> >> highway=slow_vehicle_turnout ?
> >>
> >> slow_vehicle_turnout=yes ?
> >
> > I don't think there's a reason to tag it as anything special beyond just
> the usual turn lanes tagging, since it's the same situation as any other
> "keep right except to pass" situation, just shorter.
>
> I *mostly* agree.
>
> Around here, the law doesn't say you have to use a climbing lane
> unless you're slow-moving. That's unlike a typical multilane road,
> where you are required to keep to the right except to pass. The
> posting is different, too: "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" for an ordinary
> multilane road as opposed to "SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" for a
> climbing lane. They're often striped differently, too:
>
> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8246951.946404826,5277161.158511143,-8246672.174938101,5277392.55967092=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
> is an example.  (Uphill is to the west.) The resolution on the orthos
> isn't quite good enough to show that the rightmost lane is separated
> by a double broken line, not just a single one, but you can see that
> it looks heavier in the imagery.  That stretch is also signed that
> HGV's, buses and trailers are forbidden in the leftmost lane.
>
> We also have the occasional spot like
>
> https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache
> There, we have an extra lane on the northbound side for the purpose of
> getting by when the way is blocked by left-turning traffic. When the
> way is clear, it's normal and expected to proceed through the
> intersection on the main lane. By contrast, the extra lane on the
> southbound side is striped and signed as a dedicated turning lane.
>
> I'd still ordinarily just use the 'lanes' tags and possible turn
> restrictions. (If I troubled to tag traffic lanes. Ordinarily, I
> don't. I have other fish to fry.)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 12:30 Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> I agree that those are two different critters and that using
> the passing _place tag is not the best way to handle this. But, aside from
> splitting the highway into lanes:forward, lanes:backward, etc., how should
> such a turnout be tagged? That's the question that led to this thread.
>
> highway=slow_vehicle_turnout ?
>
> slow_vehicle_turnout=yes ?
>

I don't think there's a reason to tag it as anything special beyond just
the usual turn lanes tagging, since it's the same situation as any other
"keep right except to pass" situation, just shorter.

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Albert Pundt]

lanes:forward and lanes:backward is definitely correct here. No need to
make a whole new tag for it, and I really don't see how it's too tedious to
map this way (plus adding something like hgv:lanes:forward=no|designated
for the situation).

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 11:12 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Kevin wrote:
> > lanes:forward=* and lanes:backward=* is the best that I've found so
> >far to describe truck climbing lanes and similar features. They don't
> >appear in your image to be grade-separated, so they don't need to be
> >separate ways - one way for each section of the road, with appropriate
> >lanes:forward and lanes:backward appears to describe what's on the ground.
>
> That's what I had been doing previously and I know this would be "correct"
> but it's so tedious to split and classify the highway lanes. I was looking
> for a shorter, easier method.
>
> Warin suggests passing_lane but I'm not wanting to start pushing
> another new tag out there. Even that tagging scenario will require
> additional tags (e.g., direction) to distinguish such a passing_lane from
> the other lanes, or one would have to draw a separate "lane" the way I did
> it in the example.
>
> I noticed a comment in another thread about the old directive "don't map
> for the renderer". The poster suggests that we must either map for the
> renderer in cases where routing is concerned so that our work is useful
> somewhere down the line, or else convince someone to provide routing
> support. Does anyone know if any of the more popular applications consider
> the "passing_place" or "passing_places" tags when determining routing?
>
> Thanks for the responses,
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:55 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/08/18 10:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> > I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts
>> > consisting of a lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road
>> > so that slow moving vehicles can pull aside to allow following
>> > vehicles to pass. The best I can come up with is the tag
>> > highway=passing_place but strangely it applies only to nodes. I'm
>> > looking for examples from the real world similar to the one in this
>> > JOSM screenshot. I've selected both the passing lanes to color them
>> > red so you can see them.
>> >
>> Passing place .. I know them from Scotland - on a single lane road (two
>> way) if;
>> you come up behind a slow moving vehicle they are supposed to pull in to
>> the next 'passing place' and let you by,
>> you see an oncoming vehicle you are supposed to pull into the next
>> passing place .. unless the oncoming vehicle gets into one.
>>
>> Of course the actual road rules may be different from my observations ..
>> but for a practical perspective that is the behaviour I have observed.
>>
>> Passing places have barely enough room for one vehicle towing a caravan.
>> They are not that long. And you actually have to come to a complete stop
>> in them .. too short to do anything else.
>> I have followed a slow moving vehicle for some distance .. going by a
>> few 'passing places' with no pulling over.
>> And I have come across oncoming vehicles where I have pulled off the
>> road risking getting bogged as there were no convent passing places
>> available.
>>
>> > I had been using a variable number of lanes to describe the situation
>> > but these two passing_places are offset making using the lanes tags
>> > cumbersome to apply, 4 separate pieces, lanes going in different
>> > directions, oneway sections, etc. According to the Wiki, the
>> > passing_place tag is to be used only on nodes.
>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place) Why
>> > this should be so, I do not understand.
>> >
>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4g4t7mk6e4161l/passing_place.jpg?dl=0
>> >
>> > What alternatives do I have?
>>
>> Make a new tag.
>> passing_lane?
>>
>> In some instances here the traffic is directed into the side lanes, with
>> one centre land for passing...
>> a danger here is with opposing traffic where opposing people want to pass.
>> I take the chicken view - if there is opposing traffic that I cannot see
>> around then I will not take that centre lane.
>> This centre lane might also be termed a 'passing lane'.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
—Albert Pundt
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Steve Doerr]

On 25/08/2018 01:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts 
consisting of a lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road 
so that slow moving vehicles can pull aside to allow following 
vehicles to pass. The best I can come up with is the tag 
highway=passing_place



Sounds like a 'crawler lane' to me - has that been used in tagging anywhere?


--

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] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Kevin wrote:
> lanes:forward=* and lanes:backward=* is the best that I've found so
>far to describe truck climbing lanes and similar features. They don't
>appear in your image to be grade-separated, so they don't need to be
>separate ways - one way for each section of the road, with appropriate
>lanes:forward and lanes:backward appears to describe what's on the ground.

That's what I had been doing previously and I know this would be "correct"
but it's so tedious to split and classify the highway lanes. I was looking
for a shorter, easier method.

Warin suggests passing_lane but I'm not wanting to start pushing
another new tag out there. Even that tagging scenario will require
additional tags (e.g., direction) to distinguish such a passing_lane from
the other lanes, or one would have to draw a separate "lane" the way I did
it in the example.

I noticed a comment in another thread about the old directive "don't map
for the renderer". The poster suggests that we must either map for the
renderer in cases where routing is concerned so that our work is useful
somewhere down the line, or else convince someone to provide routing
support. Does anyone know if any of the more popular applications consider
the "passing_place" or "passing_places" tags when determining routing?

Thanks for the responses,

Dave

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:55 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/08/18 10:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts
> > consisting of a lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road
> > so that slow moving vehicles can pull aside to allow following
> > vehicles to pass. The best I can come up with is the tag
> > highway=passing_place but strangely it applies only to nodes. I'm
> > looking for examples from the real world similar to the one in this
> > JOSM screenshot. I've selected both the passing lanes to color them
> > red so you can see them.
> >
> Passing place .. I know them from Scotland - on a single lane road (two
> way) if;
> you come up behind a slow moving vehicle they are supposed to pull in to
> the next 'passing place' and let you by,
> you see an oncoming vehicle you are supposed to pull into the next
> passing place .. unless the oncoming vehicle gets into one.
>
> Of course the actual road rules may be different from my observations ..
> but for a practical perspective that is the behaviour I have observed.
>
> Passing places have barely enough room for one vehicle towing a caravan.
> They are not that long. And you actually have to come to a complete stop
> in them .. too short to do anything else.
> I have followed a slow moving vehicle for some distance .. going by a
> few 'passing places' with no pulling over.
> And I have come across oncoming vehicles where I have pulled off the
> road risking getting bogged as there were no convent passing places
> available.
>
> > I had been using a variable number of lanes to describe the situation
> > but these two passing_places are offset making using the lanes tags
> > cumbersome to apply, 4 separate pieces, lanes going in different
> > directions, oneway sections, etc. According to the Wiki, the
> > passing_place tag is to be used only on nodes.
> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place) Why
> > this should be so, I do not understand.
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4g4t7mk6e4161l/passing_place.jpg?dl=0
> >
> > What alternatives do I have?
>
> Make a new tag.
> passing_lane?
>
> In some instances here the traffic is directed into the side lanes, with
> one centre land for passing...
> a danger here is with opposing traffic where opposing people want to pass.
> I take the chicken view - if there is opposing traffic that I cannot see
> around then I will not take that centre lane.
> This centre lane might also be termed a 'passing lane'.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Warin]

On 25/08/18 10:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts 
consisting of a lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road 
so that slow moving vehicles can pull aside to allow following 
vehicles to pass. The best I can come up with is the tag 
highway=passing_place but strangely it applies only to nodes. I'm 
looking for examples from the real world similar to the one in this 
JOSM screenshot. I've selected both the passing lanes to color them 
red so you can see them.


Passing place .. I know them from Scotland - on a single lane road (two 
way) if;
you come up behind a slow moving vehicle they are supposed to pull in to 
the next 'passing place' and let you by,
you see an oncoming vehicle you are supposed to pull into the next 
passing place .. unless the oncoming vehicle gets into one.


Of course the actual road rules may be different from my observations .. 
but for a practical perspective that is the behaviour I have observed.


Passing places have barely enough room for one vehicle towing a caravan. 
They are not that long. And you actually have to come to a complete stop 
in them .. too short to do anything else.
I have followed a slow moving vehicle for some distance .. going by a 
few 'passing places' with no pulling over.
And I have come across oncoming vehicles where I have pulled off the 
road risking getting bogged as there were no convent passing places 
available.


I had been using a variable number of lanes to describe the situation 
but these two passing_places are offset making using the lanes tags 
cumbersome to apply, 4 separate pieces, lanes going in different 
directions, oneway sections, etc. According to the Wiki, the 
passing_place tag is to be used only on nodes. 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place) Why 
this should be so, I do not understand.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4g4t7mk6e4161l/passing_place.jpg?dl=0

What alternatives do I have?


Make a new tag.
passing_lane?

In some instances here the traffic is directed into the side lanes, with 
one centre land for passing...

a danger here is with opposing traffic where opposing people want to pass.
I take the chicken view - if there is opposing traffic that I cannot see 
around then I will not take that centre lane.

This centre lane might also be termed a 'passing lane'.



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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 8:18 PM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts consisting of a 
> lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road so that slow moving 
> vehicles can pull aside to allow following vehicles to pass. The best I can 
> come up with is the tag highway=passing_place but strangely it applies only 
> to nodes. I'm looking for examples from the real world similar to the one in 
> this JOSM screenshot. I've selected both the passing lanes to color them red 
> so you can see them.
>
> I had been using a variable number of lanes to describe the situation but 
> these two passing_places are offset making using the lanes tags cumbersome to 
> apply, 4 separate pieces, lanes going in different directions, oneway 
> sections, etc. According to the Wiki, the passing_place tag is to be used 
> only on nodes. 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place) Why this 
> should be so, I do not understand.

lanes:forward=* and lanes:backward=* is the best that I've found so
far to describe truck climbing lanes and similar features. They don't
appear in your image to be grade-separated, so they don't need to be
separate ways - one way for each section of the road, with appropriate
lanes:forward and lanes:backward appears to describe what's on the
ground.

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