Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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]:

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

>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,

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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:

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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'

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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,

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

>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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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.

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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 --

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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?

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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",

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

@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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

@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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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.

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

>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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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?

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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:

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

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 >