Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

[bkmap]

Am 18.10.2011 13:17, schrieb Ilya Zverev:

bkmap:

When we already have numbers for the track positions, why we do not
use them thus? So the data consumer knows the location without the
lanes:location tag.
lanes=4
lanes:turnleft=3;4
lanes:merge=1
lanes:through=2;3


I considered this notation, but it has many drawbacks, the major one
being the difference in meaning of values of similar-named tags: lanes,
lanes:psv and lanes:hgv contain number of lanes, and other lanes:*
therefore also should.
It is not too late to change this. We must change about 11+2+7=20 tags 
worldwide if we consider to modify the notation of the lanes:*:tag.

362 lanes:psv=1
11  lanes:psv=2
4   lanes:psv=backward
2   lanes:psv=3
75  lanes:bus=1
7   lanes:bus=2
38  lanes:hgv=share_psv_lane
5   lanes:hgv=1


And yes, I also considered using this notation
for lanes:*:location - but it is very error-prone, depending on users to
calculate lane numbers, and left/right wouldn't fit in it.
Using verbal values like left and right (except turn...) is IMO more 
fault-prone than defined lane numbers. We need anyway suitable editor 
tools for lanes.


I know that we need a pattern for lanes. I like this beginning first 
also well. But I have, taken as a whole, no good feeling with this 
proposal.

It leaves open too many issues which could appear later:
How to tag the lane width, different surfaces and restrictions like 
forbidden lane change? How the data consumer knows, how the lanes of the 
road segments are connected together? And so on...


cheers,
Burkhard


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

[bkmap]

Am 11.10.2011 13:29, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

2011/10/11 Ilya Zverevzve...@textual.ru:

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
There was a proposal for tagging type of divider, but it has been abandoned
for several years:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider



There is also a proposal for a relation to unify dual carriageways
(e.g. often pedestrians can cross but cars can't, dependent on the
kind of divider) which also allows for tagging of the divider (either
implicitly or explicitly):

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area



How would you tag a lane according to this proposal that allows at the
same time e.g. to go straight and left?


Lanes separately are not tagged, only lane groups. In this case there are
one lane group for turning left and one — for going straight. So it would be
lanes=N, lanes:turnleft=1, lanes:through=N. If the left lane was used _only_
for turning left, lanes:through tag could be omitted.



how would the data consumer know, where the lanes are? E.g. a lane to
turn left might also be right of the through-lanes, and this is
crucial for routers to give good indications.


When we already have numbers for the track positions, why we do not use 
them thus? So the data consumer knows the location without the 
lanes:location tag.

lanes=4
lanes:turnleft=3;4
lanes:merge=1
lanes:through=2;3

cheers,
Burkhard


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