Re: [Talk-us] Center Turn Lanes/Auxiliary Lanes

[Elliott Plack]

There is a proposed tag for lanes:both_ways=*

that I use for those. The handy JOSM Turn Lanes plugin supports this, which you
can see in the second screencap on their repo
. Mapbox has done a lot of turn
lane mapping around the US and offer some helpful tips here

and here .

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:05 PM Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> I've been researching the way auxiliary lanes (right/left turn, etc.) are
> tagged in OSM but I can't tell if there's an accepted standard for handling
> these. There are a number of competing proposals for different scenarios
> and nothing seems to cover all cases.
>
> 
> Key:turn  appears to be
> pretty widely used but I don't see anything in there about the commonly
> used center turn lane
>  here in
> the US.
>
> So I guess I have two questions:
>
>1. Is there an accepted standard for handling auxiliary lanes?
>2. Is there a common way for US mappers to tag the center turn lane?
>
> Thanks,
> Spencer
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Center Turn Lanes/Auxiliary Lanes

[Spencer Gardner]

I've been researching the way auxiliary lanes (right/left turn, etc.) are
tagged in OSM but I can't tell if there's an accepted standard for handling
these. There are a number of competing proposals for different scenarios
and nothing seems to cover all cases.


Key:turn  appears to be pretty
widely used but I don't see anything in there about the commonly used center
turn lane 
here in the US.

So I guess I have two questions:

   1. Is there an accepted standard for handling auxiliary lanes?
   2. Is there a common way for US mappers to tag the center turn lane?

Thanks,
Spencer
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Thanks, Paul, that's a big task.  OSM (and I) appreciate it.

SteveA
California


> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
>   talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. USBR 66 in Oklahoma (Paul Johnson)
> 
> From: Paul Johnson 
> Subject: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma
> Date: December 5, 2016 at 3:20:34 AM PST
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up, I'm noticing the relation for USBR 66 in Oklahoma is darn 
> near unmaintainable due to the sheer size of it, and I'm taking action now to 
> prevent the problem from getting far worse in the future.
> 
> The fact that the west end of the relation ends on a dual carriageway leading 
> into Texas makes this relation extremely difficult to validate as a single 
> relation.  This relation is presently over 1400 ways and is growing thanks to 
> lane tagging efforts in the region.  As this relation has a huge number of 
> dual and single carriageway segments, it's going to be easiest to split this 
> into two relations by direction so at least editors can properly validate 
> this relation.
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

[Volker Schmidt]

>
>
> I will clarify that I do feel a little bad about this only because there's
> no editors that handle two-way relations that end on a dual carriageway
> cleanly, thus being the primary driver for this change.
>


I have come that the conclusion from a different angle. I and many others
have tried to produce GPX files from route relations. That is easy if the
route elements constitute a loop-less line. If there are no loops it is
sufficient to use the Sort function in JOSM to put them in a sequence which
is easily converted.
If you have loops of any kind this does not work any more.
It is a good and clean solution, and, as I mentioned before, it is in line
with approach for bus and tram routes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
>
> Just a heads up, I'm noticing the relation for USBR 66 in Oklahoma is darn
>> near unmaintainable due to the sheer size of it, and I'm taking action now
>> to prevent the problem from getting far worse in the future.
>>
>> The fact that the west end of the relation ends on a dual carriageway
>> leading into Texas makes this relation extremely difficult to validate as
>> a
>> single relation.  This relation is presently over 1400 ways and is growing
>> thanks to lane tagging efforts in the region.  As this relation has a huge
>> number of dual and single carriageway segments, it's going to be easiest
>> to
>> split this into two relations by direction so at least editors can
>> properly
>> validate this relation.
>>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I have just ridden most of the proposed
> USBR66 from East to West and noticed that a  non-negligible part of the
> route is on one-way roads. I fully agree that the best solution is to have
> two relations, one for each direction. I have come to the same conclusion
> here in Italy where the problem is less the dual-carriageway issue, but the
> increasing number of roundabouts or inner-city one-way systems which have
> the same effect on bicycle routes.
> I think it's only natural to do it this way. We already do it regularly
> for bus routes.
>

I will clarify that I do feel a little bad about this only because there's
no editors that handle two-way relations that end on a dual carriageway
cleanly, thus being the primary driver for this change.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

[Volker Schmidt]

Just a heads up, I'm noticing the relation for USBR 66 in Oklahoma is darn
> near unmaintainable due to the sheer size of it, and I'm taking action now
> to prevent the problem from getting far worse in the future.
>
> The fact that the west end of the relation ends on a dual carriageway
> leading into Texas makes this relation extremely difficult to validate as a
> single relation.  This relation is presently over 1400 ways and is growing
> thanks to lane tagging efforts in the region.  As this relation has a huge
> number of dual and single carriageway segments, it's going to be easiest to
> split this into two relations by direction so at least editors can properly
> validate this relation.
>

Thanks for bringing this up. I have just ridden most of the proposed USBR66
from East to West and noticed that a  non-negligible part of the route is
on one-way roads. I fully agree that the best solution is to have two
relations, one for each direction. I have come to the same conclusion here
in Italy where the problem is less the dual-carriageway issue, but the
increasing number of roundabouts or inner-city one-way systems which have
the same effect on bicycle routes.
I think it's only natural to do it this way. We already do it regularly for
bus routes.

Volker
Padova, Italy
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

[Paul Johnson]

Just a heads up, I'm noticing the relation for USBR 66 in Oklahoma is darn
near unmaintainable due to the sheer size of it, and I'm taking action now
to prevent the problem from getting far worse in the future.

The fact that the west end of the relation ends on a dual carriageway
leading into Texas makes this relation extremely difficult to validate as a
single relation.  This relation is presently over 1400 ways and is growing
thanks to lane tagging efforts in the region.  As this relation has a huge
number of dual and single carriageway segments, it's going to be easiest to
split this into two relations by direction so at least editors can properly
validate this relation.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us