Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Horea Meleg 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We
> have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated.
>
> *Case 1 *
>
> We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came across with those 2
> situations:
>

I'd consider "a" to be better mapped, though could use improvement,
connecting it to the ways to the north and south and specifying turn
restrictions (since, theoretically, an emergency vehicle, could physically
make it).


> *Which road geometry do you think is correct edited? The links are edited
> different even that, according to Bing aerial imagery they should be edited
> in the same way. Also, in these situations, each road geometry causes a
> different lane and turn lane tagging. *
>
> *Case 2*
>
> We have this situation:
>
> 42.6515832, -83.1619915
>
> I wouldn't consider the hooks to be part of the same ways on the sides,
but their own links.  Might have to research local rules to find out what
turn restrictions would be applicable.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Jack Burke]

According to one Georgia lawyer's website[1] as well as the Indiana
driver's handbook[2], it is illegal to cross a solid white line between
lanes.  Having said that, I would map Case 1 as shown in A, because I don't
think any police officer is going to bother writing a ticket if someone
does so when entering a turn lane, as well as for the reasons Marc
outlined.  I come across turn lanes mapped as separate ways all the time,
especially when the lane has a median separation at the point of the turn.
I change them so that the _link road separates from the main road just
before where the median is.  I will note that in some construction zones,
particularly where the lanes have been shifted temporarily, they do put
down solid white lines between lanes sometimes, specifically because they
don't want vehicles changing lanes in that section of road.

A *double* solid white line, however, would almost certainly draw police
attention if you were to cross it, so those probably should be mapped
separately.

A turn lane that has a painted median, however, I do map as a separate
_link because it is technically illegal to drive on the median, and routing
software needs to be able to alert drivers before the turn lane separates
from the main road.

Regarding case 2, I'm reasonably sure that it would be illegal for someone
coming from the south to make those turns.  I seem to recall hearing that
there is a legal minimum distance you're supposed to drive before changing
lanes, although I can't find it in the Georgia driver's manual.  I
periodically run into some local police officers who can probably answer
that for me, at least as the law is in Georgia.  I think every state does
have a minimum legal distance, which varies from state to state, that
you're supposed to signal your turn before making it, and there is simply
no way a driver coming from the south would be able to meet that
requirement.  In the picture provided, I would actually "cheat" the link
road a little so that it connects to the main road just before where the
side road comes in.  It looks like a difference of only a few feet in the
picture, so I don't think that's a critical enough distance where cheating
the connection point is an issue.  (If it were more than just a few feet,
then no, I wouldn't cheat the connection point.)

--jack

[1]
http://www.lawofficeofscottmiller.com/faqs/is-it-legal-for-my-vehicle-to-cross-a-solid-white-line-.cfm
[2] https://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Drivers_Manual_Chapter_5.pdf



On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Eric Ladner 
> wrote:
> > Just to play Devil's advocate:  B is probably more TECHNICALLY correct
> since
> > a solid white line indicates "lane change discouraged, but not illegal"
> and
> > you'd probably want the routing software to indicate where the turn lane
> > starts, not 200 feet later (esp. in heavy traffic and the lane's already
> > full of cars).
>
> In Belgium (and other European countries), it is illegal to cross a
> solid white line under normal circumstances.
>
> An OSM way represents a separate street, not a lane. When you start
> representing lanes as ways, you break data consumers that count ways,
> or that really need to know whether the physical divider is. Emergency
> vehicles are not interested in solid white lines, but are interested
> in physical dividers that they cannot cross.
>
> For all those reasons, I will not map a separate way for a lane
> separated by a solid line. I do hope that the  but routing apps should
> start implementing change:lane, which is the proper way to map it
> IMHO.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> (*) in some special case
>
> ___
> 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] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Eric Ladner  wrote:
> Just to play Devil's advocate:  B is probably more TECHNICALLY correct since
> a solid white line indicates "lane change discouraged, but not illegal" and
> you'd probably want the routing software to indicate where the turn lane
> starts, not 200 feet later (esp. in heavy traffic and the lane's already
> full of cars).

In Belgium (and other European countries), it is illegal to cross a
solid white line under normal circumstances.

An OSM way represents a separate street, not a lane. When you start
representing lanes as ways, you break data consumers that count ways,
or that really need to know whether the physical divider is. Emergency
vehicles are not interested in solid white lines, but are interested
in physical dividers that they cannot cross.

For all those reasons, I will not map a separate way for a lane
separated by a solid line. I do hope that the  but routing apps should
start implementing change:lane, which is the proper way to map it
IMHO.

regards

m

(*) in some special case

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Eric Ladner]

yeah, I agree..  just prodding thought.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:21 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> At least one routing app I have been using seems to use the turn:lane
> tagging [1] convention shown on the wiki. That allows the route guidance to
> let you know you should be getting into the turn lane at an appropriate
> time. Not sure if the change:lanes [2] tagging is being followed but it
> does allow for showing that crossing the solid line is not legal. Between
> turn:lanes and change:lanes, I don’t see the need to have a separate way
> that doesn’t really exist.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Eric Ladner  wrote:
>
> Just to play Devil's advocate:  B is probably more TECHNICALLY correct
> since a solid white line indicates "lane change discouraged, but not
> illegal" and you'd probably want the routing software to indicate where the
> turn lane starts, not 200 feet later (esp. in heavy traffic and the lane's
> already full of cars).
>
> Whether it's practical to map it like that or not is another matter.
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>> Case 1: First example is much closer to how I would tag it based on the
>> the rule that it should not be a separate way if it is only separated by
>> paint.
>>
>> Case 2: I would not expect the two paths to be considered safe or legal
>> where I live in the US (not in Michigan). While there is some effort at
>> coordinating traffic laws between states, ultimately it is up to the state
>> to define their own rules so it might vary from state to state.
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Horea Meleg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We
>> have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated.
>>
>> *Case 1 *
>>
>> We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came across with those 2
>> situations:
>>
>>1. 42.4479327, -83.0484338
>>
>> 
>>
>>1. 42.2826283, -83.3683861
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Which road geometry do you think is correct edited? The links are edited
>> different even that, according to Bing aerial imagery they should be edited
>> in the same way. Also, in these situations, each road geometry causes a
>> different lane and turn lane tagging. *
>>
>> *Case 2*
>>
>> We have this situation:
>>
>> 42.6515832, -83.1619915
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> *According to US driving rules, are those turns allowed? Are you allowed
>> to go on the link if you are coming from South?*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Horea
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Tod Fitch]

At least one routing app I have been using seems to use the turn:lane tagging 
[1] convention shown on the wiki. That allows the route guidance to let you 
know you should be getting into the turn lane at an appropriate time. Not sure 
if the change:lanes [2] tagging is being followed but it does allow for showing 
that crossing the solid line is not legal. Between turn:lanes and change:lanes, 
I don’t see the need to have a separate way that doesn’t really exist.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Eric Ladner  wrote:
> 
> Just to play Devil's advocate:  B is probably more TECHNICALLY correct since 
> a solid white line indicates "lane change discouraged, but not illegal" and 
> you'd probably want the routing software to indicate where the turn lane 
> starts, not 200 feet later (esp. in heavy traffic and the lane's already full 
> of cars).  
> 
> Whether it's practical to map it like that or not is another matter.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> Case 1: First example is much closer to how I would tag it based on the the 
> rule that it should not be a separate way if it is only separated by paint.
> 
> Case 2: I would not expect the two paths to be considered safe or legal where 
> I live in the US (not in Michigan). While there is some effort at 
> coordinating traffic laws between states, ultimately it is up to the state to 
> define their own rules so it might vary from state to state.
> 
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Horea Meleg > > wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We 
>> have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Case 1 
>> 
>> We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came across with those 2 
>> situations:
>> 
>> 42.4479327, -83.0484338
> 
>> 
>> 42.2826283, -83.3683861
>>
> 
>>  
>> 
>> Which road geometry do you think is correct edited? The links are edited 
>> different even that, according to Bing aerial imagery they should be edited 
>> in the same way. Also, in these situations, each road geometry causes a 
>> different lane and turn lane tagging. 
>> 
>> Case 2
>> 
>> We have this situation:
>> 
>> 42.6515832, -83.1619915
>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>  
>> 
>> According to US driving rules, are those turns allowed? Are you allowed to 
>> go on the link if you are coming from South?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Horea 
>> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Tod Fitch]

Case 1: First example is much closer to how I would tag it based on the the 
rule that it should not be a separate way if it is only separated by paint.

Case 2: I would not expect the two paths to be considered safe or legal where I 
live in the US (not in Michigan). While there is some effort at coordinating 
traffic laws between states, ultimately it is up to the state to define their 
own rules so it might vary from state to state.

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Horea Meleg  wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We 
> have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated.
> 
> Case 1 
> 
> We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came across with those 2 
> situations:
> 
> 42.4479327, -83.0484338
> 
> 42.2826283, -83.3683861
>
>  
> 
> Which road geometry do you think is correct edited? The links are edited 
> different even that, according to Bing aerial imagery they should be edited 
> in the same way. Also, in these situations, each road geometry causes a 
> different lane and turn lane tagging. 
> 
> Case 2
> 
> We have this situation:
> 
> 42.6515832, -83.1619915
> 
> 
>  
> 
> According to US driving rules, are those turns allowed? Are you allowed to go 
> on the link if you are coming from South?
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Horea 
> 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 07/13/2017 02:15 AM, Horea Meleg wrote:
> *According to US driving rules, are those turns allowed? Are you allowed
> to go on the link if you are coming from South?*

Probably not; even if technically not prohibited explicitly, it would
probably be cited as reckless driving or careless driving if attempted
with any non-trivial amount of other traffic on the road and observed. I
would add a turn restriction just for the sake of routing software that
would route hapless motorists on such a turn.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[James Mast]

Because back in the day, people complained about the spelling and that it had 
to be in the 'British' way.  So, it's under 'centre_turn_lane'.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:centre_turn_lane

Key:centre_turn_lane - OpenStreetMap 
Wiki<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:centre_turn_lane>
wiki.openstreetmap.org
A two-way center turn lane is a normal-width lane in the middle of a road that 
handles traffic from either direction turning across the other side (turning 
left in ...




From: m...@rtijn.org <m...@rtijn.org>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 4:37:09 PM
To: Paul Johnson
Cc: Horea Meleg; talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

For the ‘dashed line’ center turn lanes: what you do makes sense to me too. I 
have used center_turn_lane=yes in the past, but that is not documented and I 
wouldn’t encourage it. This way it fits nicely into the lanes schema.

The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0
 — even though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as 
suggested by the turn lane style.

Martijn

On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Paul Johnson 
<ba...@ursamundi.org<mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
access:lanes:both_ways=no

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg 
<horea.me...@telenav.com<mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote:
Hello all,
Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859):

Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions)

or have only 2, one for each direction?


Thank you,
Horea Meleg

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


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 06/20/2017 06:43 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Depends on the region.  Oregon, Oklahoma, and California often includes
> the arrows anyway.

Texas often includes the arrows as well.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:37 PM,  wrote:

> The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely: https://www.dropbox.
> com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0 — even
> though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as suggested
> by the turn lane style.
>

Depends on the region.  Oregon, Oklahoma, and California often includes the
arrows anyway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:44 PM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> Judging from the markings, that is a turn lane shared by both directions.
> You cannot legally use it to pass a car in the main driving lane, you can
> only use it to make a left turn. Lanes of this type are nicknamed "suicide
> lanes", because of the possibility that vehicles going in opposite
> directions may try to use it simultaneously, resulting in a head-on
> collision.
>
Suicide lanes are something else: They're passing lanes in both directions,
not continuous bidirectional left turn lanes.  Historically, they were like
the reversible left turn lane, only with a dotted yellow line and no solid
line.  Neither direction had right of way.  This concept is, as far as I'm
aware, obsolete in the US.  Typical configuration is now 2+1, with the
center lane being one of the two lanes for the uphill direction, signed
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS, with one downhill lane and the centerline
indicating the downhill direction can use the center lane to pass.  With
the mass repave-the-entire-state push Oregon recently completed, I don't
think even the historical remnants of these (where you could still see the
faded remains of the former suicide lane yellow stripes) remain at this
point (whereas previously you could see hints and traces of the old yellow
line where the white line is on the uphill side is on Oregon's 3-lane
highways).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:37 PM,   wrote:
> The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0
> — even though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as
> suggested by the turn lane style.

That's because in Europe they usually have those left turn arrows. :-)

m.

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

[Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Michael Patrick]

> > Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area.
> We found some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901,
> -83.51102781049859): Our question is: what is the central lane used for and
> how do we map it? Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in
> this case (one for each direction and one for both directions)
>

In that specific case, it is not a traffic lane per se, it a 'left turn
lane' when leaving the roadway, and a 'merge' lane if one is making a left
turn onto the roadways. It also acts as a traffic separator.

I used to live in that area - there is an *exceptional* piece of weirdness
at ( 42.5665399,-83.0309866 ).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[John F. Eldredge]

Judging from the markings, that is a turn lane shared by both directions. You 
cannot legally use it to pass a car in the main driving lane, you can only use 
it to make a left turn. Lanes of this type are nicknamed "suicide lanes", 
because of the possibility that vehicles going in opposite directions may try 
to use it simultaneously, resulting in a head-on collision.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge
com
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:18 AM Horea Meleg  wrote:
Hello all,
Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859):
[cid:image001.jpg@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]
Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions)
[cid:image002.png@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]
or have only 2, one for each direction?
[cid:image003.png@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]

Thank you,
Horea Meleg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[m]

For the ‘dashed line’ center turn lanes: what you do makes sense to me too. I 
have used center_turn_lane=yes in the past, but that is not documented and I 
wouldn’t encourage it. This way it fits nicely into the lanes schema.

The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0
 — even though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as 
suggested by the turn lane style.

Martijn

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
> lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
> solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
> access:lanes:both_ways=no
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg  > wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We 
> found some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859):
> 
> 
> 
> Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
> 
> Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
> each direction and one for both directions)
> 
> 
> 
> or have only 2, one for each direction?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Horea Meleg
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I haven’t settled on a tagging for when the center area is blocked by
> solid lines (legally meaning don’t cross), but an access tag would be
> reasonable. An alternative or addition to an access control could be using
> the proposed change:lanes tagging to show that one can’t change into or out
> of the center median area, but that would take more tags
> (change:lanes:forward=not_left, change:lanes:backward=not_left, and
> change:lanes:both_ways=no) and be less precise than
> access:lanes:both_ways=no.
>

When it's double-solid lines and slashes down the median (meaning that not
only can you not turn left from that lane, but you also can't turn left
across it), access:lanes:both_ways=no plus turn restrictions at the
junctions.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
> lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
> solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
> access:lanes:both_ways=no
> 

My current practice matches Paul’s first case where it is a center turn lane 
(lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left). Perhaps that is tagging for 
the editor as the turn lane plug in for JOSM displays it nicely.

I haven’t settled on a tagging for when the center area is blocked by solid 
lines (legally meaning don’t cross), but an access tag would be reasonable. An 
alternative or addition to an access control could be using the proposed 
change:lanes tagging to show that one can’t change into or out of the center 
median area, but that would take more tags (change:lanes:forward=not_left, 
change:lanes:backward=not_left, and change:lanes:both_ways=no) and be less 
precise than access:lanes:both_ways=no.




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Kerry Irons 
wrote:

> Center lane is a left turn only lane.  If the space to the side of the
> solid white lines is a bike lane, then this street may have be subject to a
> “road diet” in which a 4 lane street is reduced to two travel lanes, a turn
> lane, and two bike lanes.  Otherwise the street was constructed in that
> configuration.
>

Doesn't look like bike lanes, looks like hard shoulders alternating with
right turn pockets.  But bicycle lanes are travel lanes, so a road diet
from a 4 lane to a street with two general access and two bicycle lanes and
a central turn lane would be 5 lanes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Kerry Irons]

Center lane is a left turn only lane.  If the space to the side of the solid 
white lines is a bike lane, then this street may have be subject to a “road 
diet” in which a 4 lane street is reduced to two travel lanes, a turn lane, and 
two bike lanes.  Otherwise the street was constructed in that configuration.

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:21 AM
To: Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com>
Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

 

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
access:lanes:both_ways=no

 

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com 
<mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com> > wrote:

Hello all,

Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859): 



Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?

Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions) 



or have only 2, one for each direction?



 

Thank you,

Horea Meleg


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Paul Johnson]

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with
lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has
two solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and
access:lanes:both_ways=no

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We
> found some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901,
> -83.51102781049859):
>
> Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
>
> Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one
> for each direction and one for both directions)
>
> or have only 2, one for each direction?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Horea Meleg
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Horea Meleg]

Hello all,
Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859):
[cid:image001.jpg@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]
Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions)
[cid:image002.png@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]
or have only 2, one for each direction?
[cid:image003.png@01D2E906.C4A4DCA0]

Thank you,
Horea Meleg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Paul Johnson]

No problem, I've updated it and the adjacent frontage roads for how I
handle this situation typically (Texas turnarounds and 4-carriageway
freeway arrangements are common to frequent in my area).

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com>
wrote:

> Hy Paul,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re
> approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).
>
> Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be
> processed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
> *To:* Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com>
> *Cc:* Rihards <ric...@nakts.net>; Hans De Kryger <
> hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; talk-US@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous
> line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it
> should be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>
>
>
> Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?
> I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at
> the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and
> start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the
> US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a
> "discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas
> crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In
> either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this
> situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no
> where that solid line is.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Horea Meleg]

Hy Paul,
Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re 
approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).
Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be 
processed:
[cid:image003.jpg@01D2BF4B.C520A8B0]



From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
To: Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com>
Cc: Rihards <ric...@nakts.net>; Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; 
talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg 
<horea.me...@telenav.com<mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote:
Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line 
begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be 
the same in OSM. What do you think?

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?  I 
tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at the 
start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and start the 
ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the US is a little 
weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a "discouraged" 
movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas crossing a 
double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In either case, I 
would generally take the conservative approach in this situation, using 
something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where that solid line is.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg 
wrote:

> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous
> line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it
> should be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?
I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at
the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and
start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the
US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a
"discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas
crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In
either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this
situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where
that solid line is.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> Oh , I thought position 2 was where the physical barrier ended. Must
> have misinterpreted the image
>
I had a quick look at the street level imagery (
https://goo.gl/maps/YYRH4eWpnjz or
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2rwAZAKMKGnjVXFDgSvJkQ

So now I would actually say that putting the split at position 2 is wrong.
The exit has two exit lanes, and you can exit into the left exit lane all
the way up to where the split is right now. Only the right exit lane has
the solid white line starting at 2.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Marc Gemis]

Oh , I thought position 2 was where the physical barrier ended. Must
have misinterpreted the image



On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:09 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
>> place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
>> should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
>> position of the node. So definitely position "2".
>> IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
>
>
> Please note the footnote on the wiki page though: "There is no physical
> separation between the upper two lanes and the lower ones, just a double
> solid line. While the editing standards recommend to split the ways only
> when a physical separation is present, in many regions the ways are already
> splitted in case of a legal separation like a double solid line. In such a
> case both resulting ways should be tagged with lanes=2."
>
> So if we go by what is called the "editing standards," the example that
> Horea posted is correct as is, with a split at position 2 being common but
> not exactly right because there is no physical barrier. To me that makes
> sense, as we also wouldn't map a two-lane road with a double yellow line but
> no median as separate ways.
>
>  Harald.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:09 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
> place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
> should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
> position of the node. So definitely position "2".
> IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes


Please note the footnote on the wiki page though: "There is *no* physical
separation between the upper two lanes and the lower ones, just a double
solid line. While the editing standards

 recommend to split the ways only when a *physical* separation is present,
in many regions the ways are already splitted in case of a legal separation
like a double solid line. In such a case both resulting ways should be
tagged with lanes =2."

So if we go by what is called the "editing standards," the example that
Horea posted is correct as is, with a split at position 2 being common but
not exactly right because there is no physical barrier. To me that makes
sense, as we also wouldn't map a two-lane road with a double yellow line
but no median as separate ways.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Marc Gemis]

I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
position of the node. So definitely position "2".
IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes

m

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Rihards <ric...@nakts.net> wrote:
> On 2017.04.25. 12:19, Horea Meleg wrote:
>> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
>> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line 
>> begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should 
>> be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>
> i'd probably go for "between where you may and may not enter the lane",
> maybe even leaning more towards the beginning of the allowed move.
> if you are mapping individual turning lanes, then "between" wouldn't
> work that well - for these, i'd err on starting them where one may enter
> the lane at the beginning.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Horea
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rihards [mailto:ric...@nakts.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
>> To: Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; Horea Meleg 
>> <horea.me...@telenav.com>
>> Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
>>
>> On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>>> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually
>>> starts
>>
>> between 1 & 2 for sure.
>>
>>> *Regards,**
>>> *
>>>
>>> *Hans*
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com
>>> <mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>>> area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>>> junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>>> -83.155894.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>>> mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>>> consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>>> number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Horea Meleg
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Rihards
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
>  Rihards
>
> ___
> 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] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Rihards]

On 2017.04.25. 12:19, Horea Meleg wrote:
> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line 
> begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should 
> be the same in OSM. What do you think?

i'd probably go for "between where you may and may not enter the lane",
maybe even leaning more towards the beginning of the allowed move.
if you are mapping individual turning lanes, then "between" wouldn't
work that well - for these, i'd err on starting them where one may enter
the lane at the beginning.

> Thanks,
> Horea
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rihards [mailto:ric...@nakts.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; Horea Meleg 
> <horea.me...@telenav.com>
> Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
> 
> On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually 
>> starts
> 
> between 1 & 2 for sure.
> 
>> *Regards,**
>> *
>>
>> *Hans*
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com 
>> <mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>> area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>> junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>> -83.155894.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>> mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>> consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>> number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Horea Meleg
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> 
> 
> --
>  Rihards
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 


-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Horea Meleg]

Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line 
begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be 
the same in OSM. What do you think?

Thanks,
Horea

-Original Message-
From: Rihards [mailto:ric...@nakts.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
To: Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; Horea Meleg 
<horea.me...@telenav.com>
Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually 
> starts

between 1 & 2 for sure.

> *Regards,**
> *
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com 
> <mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
> area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
> junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
> -83.155894.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
> mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
> consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
> number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.
> 
> __ __
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Horea Meleg
> 
> __ __
> 
> __ __
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Rihards]

On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually starts

between 1 & 2 for sure.

> *Regards,**
> *
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg  > wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
> area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
> junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
> -83.155894.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
> mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
> consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
> number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.
> 
> __ __
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Horea Meleg
> 
> __ __
> 
> __ __
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
> 


-- 
 Rihards

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