On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road
I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road
I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant
Those examples are very good. Any chance we could get some
license-compatible photos in the near future?
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 10:19 +0200, Ronnie Soak wrote:
I would only use a lanes value other than 2 if there are clear road
markings, signs or
As no further issues were raised with the updated article I will
replace the current lanes-article with my current version.
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
lanes=1.5 wasn't documented before and
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5
and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As
So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road
I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two
pictures of it (in one)
Above, usual
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png
Which value would people use for the lanes=*?
I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a
residential road. I wouldn't expect many trucks in this zone, but if I
were to map more detail I'd
Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems.
Only in the utopia where all drivers can confidently
manouver their cars at speed to gaps only 10-20 cm
wider than their car. Most people don't.
The white car already has it's right hand wheels
outside the normal driving surface. And
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually
more lanes on the ground than painted on the road.
Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag
sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may
not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com hat am 29. April 2012 um 17:39
geschrieben:
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png
Which value would people use for the lanes=*?
I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually
more lanes on the ground than painted on the road.
Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag
sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may
not use
On Apr 29, 2012 10:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually
more lanes on the ground than painted on the road.
Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we
The narrow road example was clearly the wrong image. I changed that
to lanes=1 and added a photo from Philip Barnes as example for a
narrow two-lane road.
Further I removed the assumptions for two-way motorways/trunks, as it
is recommend to map their carriageways as two separate way.
Anyone else
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
be misinterpreted by any one (not only applications). I still don't
know if 1.5 means an
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
be misinterpreted by any one (not only
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald
Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5
problem?
I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
if there's anything else than some fancy wordsmithing looking into the
very same road from different angles? :-)
Well, sometimes you have 1 lane, sometimes 2, or something in between.
Sometimes it is related to the width, sometimes only about the
I'm quite happy with lanes=n where n is an integer.
I am very happy to assume that a one-way road without lanes=* has only one
lane.
I am also happy to assume that a not-one-way road without lanes=* has two
lanes (one in each direction).
I am extremely happy to see a width=* tag that I can
Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane marking
in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen sections of road
where lines end where the road narrows.
Will try to find an example.
I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below
Am 27. April 2012 12:01 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below
this minimum, and would tend to prefer the width tag.
+1
Whilst following cars, it has occurred to me that knowing their width would
be a reasonable
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
forget about them. They are too subjective.
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on
the car widths and the experience of the drivers:
Heheh... :-) ...there's
Am 27. April 2012 12:18 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and
forget about them. They are too subjective.
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Georg Feddern wrote:
Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here:
Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on
the car widths and
Wouldn't this discussion benefit from a summary of the use cases we are
trying to address? I see multiple semantics being suggested for the
lanes tag, and at the end of the day we will have to choose one.
* Renderers such as mapnik might want to reflect the number of lanes in
the width of the
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:54:26 Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Andrew Errington wrote:
A lane count of 1.5 is very confusing. What does it mean? What is the
width of each lane? Is it really 1.5? Should it be 1.55, or 1.4, or
1.6?
...No, it's not multiple of some magical
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Maybe we could put an end to this discussion by enumerating the pro
and cons for both approaches? What exactly is the problem with
lanes=integer+width, that is solved with lanes=1.5 ?
Please pick the integer first so we can discuss more. ...Although
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 10:01 +, Philip Barnes wrote:
Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane
marking in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen
sections of road where lines end where the road narrows.
Will try to find an example.
Sorry its
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and
currently available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article
tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update -
otherwise it
Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard
shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch.
We have these on the M6 and M42.
Thanks Phil
On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote:
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is
It is an additional lane that will be opened for the general traffic
during rush hours. What I have seen in the Netherlands it is used as
emergency lanes at other times.
Martin
2012/4/26 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of
There are three cases in NL, all referred to as spitsstrook
(literally, rush-hour lane):
1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra
lane on the right
2) the left-most lane is sometimes open (if traffic is heavier), and
sometimes closed (if the extra capacity is not
Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale:
1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra
lane on the right
this case is used in Germany in several regions
e.g.
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
Shall this lane
- be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes
- or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane
Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane,
that is sometimes open for
Am 26. April 2012 15:37 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
Shall this lane
- be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes
- or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane
Yes, it shall be
I added a sentence explaining what a managed lane is. Understandable now?
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de:
Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale:
1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra
lane on the right
this case is used in Germany in
On 26 April 2012 10:30, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and
currently available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article
Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue.
You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like
an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it.
Am 26.04.2012 um 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue.
You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like
an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it.
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham
jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5
issue.
You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply
looks like
an attempt
2012/4/23 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
If one does not consider parked cars _at all_, the first example
of my previous post (at the end) with a 9 meter wide
carriageway and no markings would have to be lanes=3
Of course not. It would be lanes=2. The width isn't decisive for the
lane
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned,
and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that
'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be
Am 23. April 2012 13:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
:
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
:
But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more
or
less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, martinq wrote:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now
historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars
were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure
On April 23rd 2012 13:05 many people wrote
something about car width .
The only reason we started discussing about the width of vehicles was
a recommendation for narrow roads with two lanes to replace the
lanes=1.5: if someone can not or does not want to measure the width of
the road,
Am 23. April 2012 13:45 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
the road, we need some recommend value for est_width. If we agree on,
that most cars have a width of something around 2 meters, a good value
for the estimated(!) width of a road with two lanes, which is so
narrow, that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Ronnie Soak
chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote:
It may be harder to estimate a width in meters instead of a lanes count, but
I think it's possible within +/- 1m, especially for narrow ways.
(I personally only use it with either rather narrow or rather wide
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer the second form. You will never have widths with cm
precision, so they will always be somehow estimates, because even if
you measure them precisely they won't probably be exactly the same 10
or 100
On 23 April 2012 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned,
and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose.
I would recommend lanes=2 and
2012/4/23 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Problem with that, and why I am said this is far more complex than I first
thought, is some people responding to lanes=1.5 by saying 'computers' only
like whole numbers. This suggests width=4.3 would need to be rounded to
either width=4 or
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward=
Would this make sense?
Lanes=3
Lanes:forward=2
Lanes:backward=2
No, it wouldn't. This was one of the reasons, why I suggested an
additional suffix both-ways in the original version of the lanes
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less
than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost
never the same width throughout.
Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the
On 22 April 2012 08:41, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the
width exactly we would recommend:
lanes=2
width=4
source:width=estimated
or
lanes=2
est_width=4
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to
handle this correctly.
What we need right now is a
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now
historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars
were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes
makes sense.
I am not
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able
Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the
lanes=1.5
would less confusing for narrow two lane roads.
The
Am 20.04.2012 um 16:58 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
On 20 April 2012 14:35, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Which prompts another question, do we have a tag for a 'passing place'?
There is a photo of one on this page
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Ronnie Soak wrote:
In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for
this situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used,
but not too often. What should we do? I would recommend not to
use it and advise to specify a width
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose.
I would recommend lanes=2 and
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that use lanes=1/2
Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3
lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM
You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward=
Cheers,
Martin
Am 21.04.2012 um 14:23 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for
the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos
and widths?
!?! ...No! Unfortunately this was exactly what I oppose!
Sorry, I
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 15:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3
lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM
You can Tag lanes:forward= and
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 14:08 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 20:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Am 21.04.2012 um 19:11 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
The distinction used by OS is width is more than 4m or less than 4m.
And what happens if width IS 4m?
The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and
If it's 4m, you will be able to see continuous wear on the verge where
people drive off the edge of the tarmac. At 4m there will only be wear for
occasional large vehicles (tractor tracks, typically). At 6m there's
usually a centre line.
I'd quite like some tags for these subtleties, but I
2012/4/19 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are
separately mapped (which is a better
There is a discussion about PSV lanes, but what about emergency lanes.
Nobody is allowed to use it, with the exception of people who have to stop
for a car problem, or by emergency vehicles when there is a traffic jam on
the other lanes (at least, that's the case in Belgium).
This is not one
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:
But I think about adding a statement, that
usually only on major roads or very complex junctions those lanes are
actually mapped. Can we agree on this?
+1 Urban roads are going to be very messy if every little centre
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 12:33 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
If an odd number, assume a center turn lane (e.g. lanes=5 means 2 forward,
2 backward, 1 center).
You cannot assume that, many 3 lane roads have a 'chicken' lane. Where
the centre lane is used for overtaking by traffic in either direction.
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 09:09 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
For motorways and trunks I would not add any assumptions, because they
simply differ too much.
Can we agree on that?
+1
Very much agree with you there. Trunks in particular can vary
enormously, from practically motorway standard roads
On 20 April 2012 14:35, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Which prompts another question, do we have a tag for a 'passing place'?
There is a photo of one on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-track_road
Tag info shows it does highway=passing_place does get used
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes...
* Parking lanes/spaces
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes...
Thanks - I won't.
* Parking lanes/spaces should NOT be included
On 19/04/12 13:58, Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi
On 19/04/12 14:42, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes...
How does this work if the psv-lane is also allowed for bicycles and taxis ?
It is wide enough, therefore it will be counted.
But how to map it ?
bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ?
cu
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fly
But how to map it ?
bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ?
Check this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_lanes_and_bus.2Ftaxi_lanes
But the thread is about the tag lanes=*, not sub-tags like this one.
Pieren
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fly
But how to map it ?
bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ?
As Pieren already wrote: this is beyond the scope of the lanes tag.
But as you already asked: if you want to tag the mere presence of a
cycle lane, use cycleway=lane
At 2012-04-19 04:38, Martin Vonwald wrote:
* PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and
lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only.
Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are
separately mapped (which is a better solution
In the UK emergency lanes are called shoulders.
Tags for them have been suggested in the past:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder
Nick.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discussion about PSV lanes, but what about emergency lanes.
81 matches
Mail list logo
