Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Hi
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> >> > I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of
> >> > examples of separate way although no physical barrier. 
> >> >
> >> It can be easily done for any kind of mistake.

But this is speculation. These are not simple small side roads,
these examples are large, primary traffic arteries and noone
is able or willing to fix it for a decade?

I wont fix them because i think they are perfect as they are.

Isnt that an acceptable way of thinking that there are more
mappers happy to map how they see fit? It happens everywhere.
As long as there something which is utterly broken by
the way we map why not be liberal and accept to not do it
exactly by the rules.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:00 Peter Elderson,  wrote:

> But where pedestrian crossing is not allowed at all, as in the case I
> described, two ways tagging does not give this routing problem.
>

No, but it's again not the only solution: the information that crossing the
road isn't permitted can also be added to the highway=* way (using
crossing=no, if i'm not wrong).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Peter Elderson]

But where pedestrian crossing is not allowed at all, as in the case I 
described, two ways tagging does not give this routing problem.  These roads 
are not for pedestrians, there is no sidewalk, and if there is a separate 
footway or cycleway it is physically separated and cyclists/pedestrians will 
have to find the nearest crossing, as does the router. 

NB I am not pleading one way or the other. I just think there are cases where 
two-way tagging is a plausible and an acceptible solution, even when there is 
no physical vertical barrier. Oneway tagging might suggest crossing 
possibilities where in fact crossing is not feasible, even dangerous. That 
would be worse for a router than the opposite, because it might put people in 
danger. Routing a detour is the lesser evil.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 21:05 heeft Markus  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 11:21 Snusmumriken,  
>> wrote:
>> 
> 
>> That tag is about lane changing, I don't see how it could be applied to
>> my example
> 
> 
> If i understand the wiki page correctly,
> 
> lanes=2
> lanes:forward=1
> lanes:backward=1
> change:lanes:forward=not_left
> change:lanes:backward=not_left
> 
> would mean that on both lanes it isn't allowed to turn left onto the lane of 
> the oncoming traffic.
> 
> And for the case i misunderstand that tag, we can invent a new tag. Splitting 
> the road into two parallel ways isn't the only possible solution.
> 
>> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
>> sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
>> street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
>> course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
>> save a bit of time
> 
> 
> As Kevin already pointed out, there are many places without pedestrian 
> crossings. Therefore pedestrian routing wouldn't work where a road with 
> painted lane separation is mapped with two ways.
> 
> I wish you all a nice weekend
> 
> Markus
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 11:21 Snusmumriken, 
wrote:

>
> That tag is about lane changing, I don't see how it could be applied to
> my example
>

If i understand the wiki page correctly,

lanes=2
lanes:forward=1
lanes:backward=1
change:lanes:forward=not_left
change:lanes:backward=not_left

would mean that on both lanes it isn't allowed to turn left onto the lane
of the oncoming traffic.

And for the case i misunderstand that tag, we can invent a new tag.
Splitting the road into two parallel ways isn't the only possible solution.

My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
> sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
> street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
> course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
> save a bit of time
>

As Kevin already pointed out, there are many places without pedestrian
crossings. Therefore pedestrian routing wouldn't work where a road with
painted lane separation is mapped with two ways.

I wish you all a nice weekend

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Peter Elderson]

Then you wouldn’t tag separate carriageways on that particular way. In my 
country, lots of roads have carriageways separated by two lines with a green 
paint band of 1 m in between. I understand this is a type of european lining. 
Sometimes there is grass in between for a stretch, or vertical barrier. 
Roundabouts are the favoured kind of crossings, the green band usually widens 
there and gets stripes, sometimes kerbs
and grassy areas, ideal for placing giant billboards or artistic objects.

I would not hesitate to map these as two ways. The sections approaching 
roundabouts already are mapped separate.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 15:27 heeft Kevin Kenny  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Snusmumriken
>  wrote:
>> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
>> sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
>> street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
>> course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
>> save a bit of time
> 
> You surely don't live in my neighbourhood!  Aside from the fact that
> there are no sidewalks on the residential streets, I don't think there
> is any place where the tertiary road to the north has a marked
> crossing. The routing engine that you imagine would say, "you can't
> get there from here." I admit that the town isn't pedestrian-friendly,
> but I still walk to work daily.
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Snusmumriken
 wrote:
> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
> sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
> street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
> course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
> save a bit of time

You surely don't live in my neighbourhood!  Aside from the fact that
there are no sidewalks on the residential streets, I don't think there
is any place where the tertiary road to the north has a marked
crossing. The routing engine that you imagine would say, "you can't
get there from here." I admit that the town isn't pedestrian-friendly,
but I still walk to work daily.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 14:59 by pelder...@gmail.com:

>
>
>> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 11:22 heeft Philip Barnes  het 
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle 
>> can give the quickest response.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>
> I would never trust OSM data for emergency routing or any purpose requiring 
> high reliability, unless I had complete control and quality assurance of the 
> data. And since basic setup of OSM is that anyone can change data at any 
> time, I can be sure I don’t have guaranteed reliability. 
>
Sadly, sometimes all alternatives are even worse.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Peter Elderson]

> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 11:22 heeft Philip Barnes  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle 
> can give the quickest response.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)

I would never trust OSM data for emergency routing or any purpose requiring 
high reliability, unless I had complete control and quality assurance of the 
data. And since basic setup of OSM is that anyone can change data at any time, 
I can be sure I don’t have guaranteed reliability. 

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 13:47 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> Redefining stuff without very, very good
> reason seems to be a bad idea.

I don't see it as any kind of redefinition. I've been mapping like that
for many years. And as Florian Lohoff pointed out, so has many others
also.


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Snusmumriken 
wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic
> > > laws
> > > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to
> > > go. So
> > > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> > > tells him what he can do.
> >
> >
> >
> > you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call,
> > the routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of
> > action from where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other
> > data like traffic congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may
> > suggest different routes. Of course you can dismiss this in general
> > and say: "the driver will know where to go" or "will use his own
> > judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all, but this is not the
> > reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in emergency
> > scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide OSM-data-based
> > infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it.
>
>
> Thanks for clearing that out. I still think it is better to map for the
> 99.99% of drivers who need to follow the law strictly. Special tagging
> for different emergency vehicles could be applied.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to
> way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very
> bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be
> followed.
>

I think you're asking for a new tag, or adding turn restrictions, not
physical separation.  It's pretty well established that two lines is two
roadways, for which crossing over is only really going to happen where
another way is crossing between the two, not "you can't cross this line on
the pavement".  It's not like the rest of the world doesn't have this
problem, the US frequently has flush medians (
https://i.imgur.com/st58ROv.png) that indicate that you can't turn across
them or use it like a lane.  About the only time these don't get mapped as
a single way is if the median is of a geometry to deal with two closely
adjacent intersections that the only reason there's not another curbed
island there is to deal with vehicle offtracking.  Or more rarely because
it gets a fire station driveway over the median, but then the emergency gap
gets tagged as such.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 12:38 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
>> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>> > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic
>> > laws
>> > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to
>> > go. So
>> > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
>> > tells him what he can do.
>>
>>
>>
>> you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call,
>> the routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of
>> action from where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other
>> data like traffic congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may
>> suggest different routes. Of course you can dismiss this in general
>> and say: "the driver will know where to go" or "will use his own
>> judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all, but this is not the
>> reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in emergency
>> scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide OSM-data-based
>> infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for clearing that out. I still think it is better to map for the
> 99.99% of drivers who need to follow the law strictly. Special tagging
> for different emergency vehicles could be applied.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to
> way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very
> bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be
> followed.
>
And we are doing this.

Maybe there is better choice than
"One highway line = carriageway",
but in my opinion healthy conservatives is a good idea.

Redefining stuff without very, very good
reason seems to be a bad idea.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 13:23 by f...@zz.de:

> Hi
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> > I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of
>> > examples of separate way although no physical barrier. 
>> >
>> It can be easily done for any kind of mistake.
>>
>> Have you tried comparing it to split way tagging?
>>
>> It may be a good argument is that tagging
>> is appearing often. Just because it is appearing at 
>> all is not very interesting, we know this.
>>
>
> I would call them mistaked. By intuition i would map
> these areas exactly as they are right now.
>
> And these stuff is not some ice road at the north pole. These
> are streets which have been touched by 1000s of mappers and
> you call all of them beeing inexperienced noobs making mistakes?
>
Or maybe people were too busy to fix it.

I recently reverted two large scale
copyright violations (one was on my 
todo list for months).

I have lists of about 100k automatically
detected mistakes, not found by JOSM
validator.

I have opened more than 200 issues on
various bug trackers of  OSM software that I can
and want to fix.

There are many OSM notes on my city.
One of them is about an incorrectly
split road.
Etc etc (and all that is just OSM activities
that are mostly entertainment/hobby in my case)
Presence of such ways is indicator,
but just because N mappers are
active nearby does not mean that they
all N agree with that tagging

And for basically any kind of mistake
I can find many cases where it happens.
Again, have you tried comparing
popularity of both methods in 
region where you are not editing?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 13:04 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 12:48 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
>> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>> > Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST
>> > lead to
>> > way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a
>> > very
>> > bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should
>> > be
>> > followed.
>>
>>
>>
>> generally, in OSM the ways highway=* represent the carriageway.
>> "legal separations" often are just lane markings, i.e. they do not
>> constitute a carriageway, hence are not to be mapped individually
>> each with their way. We have generally followed this definition,
>>
>
> Who is this 'we' you're speaking in behalf of?
>
>From context it is fairly obvious that 
Martin is describing typical mapping
methods encountered during his OSM
activities.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of
> > examples of separate way although no physical barrier. 
> >
> It can be easily done for any kind of mistake.
> 
> Have you tried comparing it to split way tagging?
> 
> It may be a good argument is that tagging
> is appearing often. Just because it is appearing at 
> all is not very interesting, we know this.

I would call them mistaked. By intuition i would map
these areas exactly as they are right now.

And these stuff is not some ice road at the north pole. These
are streets which have been touched by 1000s of mappers and
you call all of them beeing inexperienced noobs making mistakes?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 12:48 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST
> > lead to
> > way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a
> > very
> > bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should
> > be
> > followed.
> 
> 
> 
> generally, in OSM the ways highway=* represent the carriageway.
> "legal separations" often are just lane markings, i.e. they do not
> constitute a carriageway, hence are not to be mapped individually
> each with their way. We have generally followed this definition,

Who is this 'we' you're speaking in behalf of?


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:

> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to
> way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very
> bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be
> followed.




generally, in OSM the ways highway=* represent the carriageway. "legal
separations" often are just lane markings, i.e. they do not constitute a
carriageway, hence are not to be mapped individually each with their way.
We have generally followed this definition, and if we were to change it, we
should have good reasons. If the only reason is that we need fewer turn
restrictions, then I believe we should find a better workaround than giving
up the carriageway=highway definition.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic
> > laws
> > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to
> > go. So
> > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> > tells him what he can do.
> 
> 
> 
> you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call,
> the routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of
> action from where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other
> data like traffic congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may
> suggest different routes. Of course you can dismiss this in general
> and say: "the driver will know where to go" or "will use his own
> judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all, but this is not the
> reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in emergency
> scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide OSM-data-based
> infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it.


Thanks for clearing that out. I still think it is better to map for the
99.99% of drivers who need to follow the law strictly. Special tagging
for different emergency vehicles could be applied.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to
way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very
bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground truth should be
followed.


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:32 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 
> 11 Oct 2019, 11:19 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
> > sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
> > street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
> > course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are
> > acceptable to
> > save a bit of time
> 
> It again depends on a country.
> And in same countries depends on additional details.
> 
> In many places crossing road may be as
> legal and/or as safe as crossing on a
> designated crossing.

I would think that whether it is safe or not would mostly depend on the
time of day and how much traffic there happens to be and thus best left
to the individual to judge.


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 11:22 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2019-10-11 11:09, Snusmumriken wrote:
>
>
>> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
>>  in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
>>  he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
>>  tells him what he can do.
>>
> That may be the case in some countries, but in the UK there are limitations 
> on what laws emergency vehicles can and cannot break.
>  
> Countries also have differing definitions of what constitutes an "emergency 
> vehicle" for these purposes. A regular doctor on his way to an emergency, 
> organs for transplant for example... in the UK they cannot use blue lights, 
> and "people die" because these vehicles get stuck in traffic.
>  
> See this website for all the complexities:
> http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/ 
> 
>  
> The question is, how to model this in OSM? Or do we just model for normal 
> cars? Just like for trucks, routing for emergency vehicles needs 
> parameterisation for the vehicle characteristics and the specific use to 
> which it is being put *at that moment*.
>
In this case I would map as done so far.

Split on physical splits etc.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 11:09 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
>> > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
>> > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>> > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big
>> > > SUV
>> > > > you
>> > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big
>> > > your
>> > > > car
>> > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
>> > > > that
>> > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
>> > > > able to
>> > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for
>> > > example
>> > > an emergency vehicle...
>> > 
>> > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some
>> > physical
>> > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
>> > 
>> > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
>> > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
>>
>> Maybe it depends on location but in
>> Poland emergency vehicles routinely
>> ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
>> traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
>>
>> And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
>> crossing a grass median.
>>
>> And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
>> is trickier than crossing just a painted line.
>>
>
> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.
>
The problem is the initial routing -
selecting nearest emergency vehicle(s),
initial proposed route etc.

And such software is also used for planning purposes - 
coverage of area by available firefighters etc.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 11:19 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
> sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
> street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
> course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
> save a bit of time
>
It again depends on a country.
And in same countries depends on additional details.
In many places crossing road may be as
legal and/or as safe as crossing on a
designated crossing.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-10-11 11:09, Snusmumriken wrote:

> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.

That may be the case in some countries, but in the UK there are
limitations on what laws emergency vehicles can and cannot break. 

Countries also have differing definitions of what constitutes an
"emergency vehicle" for these purposes. A regular doctor on his way to
an emergency, organs for transplant for example... in the UK they cannot
use blue lights, and "people die" because these vehicles get stuck in
traffic. 

See this website for all the complexities: 
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/ 

The question is, how to model this in OSM? Or do we just model for
normal cars? Just like for trucks, routing for emergency vehicles needs
parameterisation for the vehicle characteristics and the specific use to
which it is being put *at that moment*.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Philip Barnes]

Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle 
can give the quickest response.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Friday, 11 October 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> > > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big
> > > > SUV
> > > > > you
> > > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big
> > > > your
> > > > > car
> > > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
> > > > > that
> > > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
> > > > > able to
> > > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for
> > > > example
> > > > an emergency vehicle...
> > > 
> > > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some
> > > physical
> > > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
> > > 
> > > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
> > > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
> > 
> > Maybe it depends on location but in
> > Poland emergency vehicles routinely
> > ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
> > traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
> > 
> > And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
> > crossing a grass median.
> > 
> > And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
> > is trickier than crossing just a painted line.
> 
> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:

> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.




you are missing the point: when the emergency vehicle gets the call, the
routing engine will suggest a route to approach the place of action from
where it is now, and depending on the osm data (and other data like traffic
congestion, unaccessible roads, etc.) it may suggest different routes. Of
course you can dismiss this in general and say: "the driver will know where
to go" or "will use his own judgement", i.e. would not use OSM data at all,
but this is not the reality, in reality, OSM is used more and more in
emergency scenarios. There are companies dedicated to provide
OSM-data-based infrastructure for use by emergency services. I have seen it.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 19:53 +0200, Markus wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:10, Snusmumriken
>  wrote:
> > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car
> > journey.
> > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are
> > legally
> > separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of
> > the
> > road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
> > further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to
> > cross
> > the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
> > there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
> > directions are separated.
> 
> That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is
> illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=*
> way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000
> uses).

That tag is about lane changing, I don't see how it could be applied to
my example

> 
> While mapping separate ways where there is no physical barrier works
> for car routing, it breaks pedestrian routing and there's likely no
> way to fix this. Pedestrians usually are allowed to cross a painted
> line that cars aren't allowed to cross (at least in Europe).
> Therefore, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate
> ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a
> long detour), even though they could just cross the street.

My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
sidewalks and crossings and not to tell the pedestrian to cross a
street where there is no crossing. The individual pedestrian can of
course make up his own mind what legal/physical risks are acceptable to
save a bit of time


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big
> > > SUV
> > > > you
> > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big
> > > your
> > > > car
> > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
> > > > that
> > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
> > > > able to
> > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for
> > > example
> > > an emergency vehicle...
> > 
> > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some
> > physical
> > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
> > 
> > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
> > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
> 
> Maybe it depends on location but in
> Poland emergency vehicles routinely
> ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
> traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
> 
> And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
> crossing a grass median.
> 
> And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
> is trickier than crossing just a painted line.

It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
tells him what he can do.


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:

> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
>> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>> > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV
>> > you
>> > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your
>> > car
>> > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
>> > that
>> > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
>> > able to
>> > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
>>
>>
>>
>> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example
>> an emergency vehicle...
>>
>
> Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some physical
> separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
>
> So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
> emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
>
Maybe it depends on location but in
Poland emergency vehicles routinely
ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
crossing a grass median.

And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
is trickier than crossing just a painted line.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Oct 2019, 10:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <> 
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com > >:
>
>>
>> A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
>>  can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
>>  is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
>>  OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
>>  provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
>>
>
>
>
> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example an 
> emergency vehicle...
>
And this is not just a theory, in Poland
OSM is actually used for routing of at
least some emergency vehicles.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV
> > you
> > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your
> > car
> > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
> > that
> > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
> > able to
> > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> 
> 
> 
> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example
> an emergency vehicle...

Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some physical
separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."

So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.



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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 11 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> 
> >
> > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
> > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
> > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
> > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
> > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example an
> emergency vehicle...
>
+100
 
Also a cyclist can dismount and become a pedestrian to cross the road.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:

>
> A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
> can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
> is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
> OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
> provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
>



what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example an
emergency vehicle...

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 17:57 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car
> > journey.
> > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are
> > legally
> > separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of
> > the
> > road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
> > further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to
> > cross
> > the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
> > there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
> > directions are separated.
> 
> 
> or the kind of legal separation is mapped so that the software could
> know. 
> Or you park your car on the opposite side of the road and cross it as
> a pedestrian. Or maybe you'll finding a free parking spot much
> farther away and have to walk quite a bit. Or maybe they drive on the
> left, you're the prime minister, and your driver will park the car...
> 
> Of course it does not matter for those cases where you may not cross
> the divider legally and you do not plan to do so, and it is mapped as
> if you could not even physically, but there are usecases where you
> might want to either cross illegally, or you have the special right
> to do so, and then it should be possible to determine whether there
> is a physical possibility or not.

You have to remember that some physical separation are just as easy to
cross as a painted line. 

A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
provide a _legal_ route from A to B.





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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Alan Mackie]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 15:50, Vɑdɪm  wrote:

> Florian Lohoff-2 wrote
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the
> > middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn
> > restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience
> > mapping it one or the other way.
> > At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn.
> > From my experience this is very error prone.
>
> +1
>
> Also there are some arrangements which probably do not have a simple
> solution even with centre=* tag suggested here.
>
> For example a street with a tramway track in the middle separated from the
> rest of the roadbed by dividing lines at each side which vehicles cannot
> cross: https://goo.gl/maps/VHKbwjMoCVwawHxU9. By the way tramway tracks
> are
> drawn with two separate ways, so a single way line in the middle would make
> you think that the tramway tracks are not in the middle of the roadbed but
> at its sides.
>
> Another example is a bus lane in the middle of the road: 2 lanes of forward
> traffic, a forward bus lane, a backward bus lane, backward traffic
> https://goo.gl/maps/FubkLdHRP6DHLkv86.
>
> Yes another one is a bus lane on the right side, but it turns on the left
> through 4 lanes of normal forward traffic which not allowed to turn left
> https://goo.gl/maps/QFcfDW9h7cQ3UMJaA.
>
> I think for some of the more complex streets some grouping concept is
needed whether via areas or relations. The latter is probably a bit
fragile, the former is at least somewhat consistent with man_made=bridge
and previous 'junction area' proposals.

There was a talk along these lines at SOTM recently, although I'm not so
keen on the areas overlapping:
https://media.ccc.de/v/sotm2019-1038-is-the-osm-data-model-creaking-#t=1263

For the primary way mapping I don't think we should be splitting ways
according to direction unless there is a barrier or median.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:22 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
> frede...@remote.org>:
>
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
>> at junctions.
>
>
>
>
> this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't
> it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that
> cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction
> nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction
> relations which would be already implied?
>
> I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not
> fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which
> circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe
> we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal
> meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot
> be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can
> be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc.
>
>
> Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road?
>
> Centre cannot be crossed (all)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed)
>
>
>
> centre
> =no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/???
>
> Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the
> road driving.
>

Something that I wish routing engines would be better about:  Whether or
not to allow U-turns.  Because I seriously doubt all 3,700+ intersections
in Oregon that don't allow U-turns (literally every traffic light that
doesn't have a "U Turns OK" sign per Oregon state law), and I know not all
of the 831 signalized intersections in Tulsa (no U turn allowed at traffic
signals, it's never posted otherwise, per city code) are tagged with No U
Turn restrictions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Oct 2019, 16:29 by f...@zz.de:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
>> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
>> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
>> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
>>
>> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there
>> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
>>
>
> I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of
> examples of separate way although no physical barrier. 
>
It can be easily done for any kind of mistake.

Have you tried comparing it to split way tagging?

It may be a good argument is that tagging
is appearing often. Just because it is appearing at 
all is not very interesting, we know this.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:53:39PM +0200, Markus wrote:
> 
> That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is
> illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=*
> way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000
> uses).
> 
> While mapping separate ways where there is no physical barrier works
> for car routing, it breaks pedestrian routing and there's likely no
> way to fix this. Pedestrians usually are allowed to cross a painted
> line that cars aren't allowed to cross (at least in Europe).
> Therefore, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate
> ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a
> long detour), even though they could just cross the street.
> 
> [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change

The road in question here (where is originated) is foot=no.
So no pedestrians.

And IMHO change:lanes describes whether changing to a different lane
going the SAME direction is legal.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Markus]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 16:10, Snusmumriken
 wrote:
>
> For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey.
> Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> Main street is a two way street where the two directions are legally
> separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of the
> road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
> further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to cross
> the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
> there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
> directions are separated.

That's not true. There's another way to tell routers that it is
illegal to change lanes: by adding that information to the highway=*
way. There's already a tag for this: change:langes [1] (> 90 000
uses).

While mapping separate ways where there is no physical barrier works
for car routing, it breaks pedestrian routing and there's likely no
way to fix this. Pedestrians usually are allowed to cross a painted
line that cars aren't allowed to cross (at least in Europe).
Therefore, if the road in your example is mapped with two separate
ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a
long detour), even though they could just cross the street.

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

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:

> For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey.
> Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
> Main street is a two way street where the two directions are legally
> separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of the
> road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
> further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to cross
> the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
> there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
> directions are separated.



or the kind of legal separation is mapped so that the software could know.
Or you park your car on the opposite side of the road and cross it as a
pedestrian. Or maybe you'll finding a free parking spot much farther away
and have to walk quite a bit. Or maybe they drive on the left, you're the
prime minister, and your driver will park the car...

Of course it does not matter for those cases where you may not cross the
divider legally and you do not plan to do so, and it is mapped as if you
could not even physically, but there are usecases where you might want to
either cross illegally, or you have the special right to do so, and then it
should be possible to determine whether there is a physical possibility or
not.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Vɑdɪm]

Florian Lohoff-2 wrote
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the
> middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn
> restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience
> mapping it one or the other way.
> At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn.
> From my experience this is very error prone.

+1 

Also there are some arrangements which probably do not have a simple
solution even with centre=* tag suggested here.

For example a street with a tramway track in the middle separated from the
rest of the roadbed by dividing lines at each side which vehicles cannot
cross: https://goo.gl/maps/VHKbwjMoCVwawHxU9. By the way tramway tracks are
drawn with two separate ways, so a single way line in the middle would make
you think that the tramway tracks are not in the middle of the roadbed but
at its sides.

Another example is a bus lane in the middle of the road: 2 lanes of forward
traffic, a forward bus lane, a backward bus lane, backward traffic
https://goo.gl/maps/FubkLdHRP6DHLkv86.

Yes another one is a bus lane on the right side, but it turns on the left
through 4 lanes of normal forward traffic which not allowed to turn left
https://goo.gl/maps/QFcfDW9h7cQ3UMJaA.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
> 
> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there
> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.

I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of
examples of separate way although no physical barrier. 

I guess this proves that people follow this way of mapping when they
see fit:



Hochstraße - Kamen:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/nPGchWcPI-HhCVYM833SlA

Emil-Zimmerman-Allee - Buer
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2Y-I_7hwiM3slXyTgqTwoQ

Horster Straße - Gladbeck
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/_2HTDw3EEs8vKNR8KGKlTA

Kaiser-Wilhelm-Straße - Essen
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PAjeQdRW3t6BmQEMsXHZfQ

Friedrich-Ebert-Straße - Essen
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/a0J5HGAJI1GVVuP5sG7M3Q

Boulevard Pinel - Lyon
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/71ALZI8c9agMDxtL0z3nuA

Staropolska - Gdansk
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/p3wF7yrx634ow6fcd6oyPg

Kärtner Straße - Graz
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/qApIUsfERpNItMIcsspZdA

Heidelberg - Ernst-Walz-Brücke
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IffdeSsK58iFdjU-5_QBCA

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 15:51 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational
> problems arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically
> separated halves and other parts combined halves, does that give
> problems?
> 
> Mvg Peter Elderson
> 

For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey.
Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that
Main street is a two way street where the two directions are legally
separated. Let's say that number 10 is on the right-hand side of the
road and we are in a country that drives on the right side. Let's
further say that the shortest way to the destination would be to cross
the legal separation and take left. But that would be illegal. But
there is no way the routing engine could know that. Unless the two
directions are separated.



> > Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken <
> > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> het volgende geschreven:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where
> > > a
> > > local
> > > mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway
> > > (two
> > > lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in
> > > the
> > > middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to
> > > cross).
> > > 
> > > Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule
> > > that
> > > there
> > > must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of
> > > mapping.
> > > 
> > > The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes
> > > ways is
> > > clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
> > > restrictions
> > > at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way
> > > mapping
> > > is
> > > violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if
> > > everyone
> > > maps
> > > how they want.
> > > 
> > > The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> > > standards and rules concerning this situation,
> > 
> > I don't think that there are any rule that would say "legal
> > separation
> > => shared way". I also think that such a rule would lead to an
> > inferior
> > map.
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Peter Elderson]

Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational problems 
arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically separated halves 
and other parts combined halves, does that give problems?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a
>> local
>> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
>> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
>> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to
>> cross).
>> 
>> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that
>> there
>> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
>> 
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
>> restrictions
>> at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping
>> is
>> violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone
>> maps
>> how they want.
>> 
>> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
>> standards and rules concerning this situation,
> 
> I don't think that there are any rule that would say "legal separation
> => shared way". I also think that such a rule would lead to an inferior
> map.
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Snusmumriken]

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:38 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a
> local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to
> cross).
> 
> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that
> there
> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
> 
> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
> restrictions
> at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping
> is
> violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone
> maps
> how they want.
> 
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation,

I don't think that there are any rule that would say "legal separation
=> shared way". I also think that such a rule would lead to an inferior
map.


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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f...@zz.de:
> And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms
> it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided 
> highways.
> First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - 
> it does not make any statement about
>
OSM Wiki is not following RFC 2119.

Generally accepted rules are usually
stated as "should" and similar.

And in case of lawyering - the same page
is (from what I see) not forbidding
other mappers to revert to single way 
version.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:38 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it
> something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when
> choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have
> strict standards and definitions?
>

So, single carriage freeway?  In the US, that'd be a single way,
highway=trunk, oneway=no.

About the only time I map it otherwise is where a single carriageway
results in spurious directions due to the angles required to make it come
together (like the one block of South Lewis Avenue between 51st Street and
Skelly Drive in Tulsa, where the distance between the end of the median and
the center of the intersection results in a nearly right angle if it were
to be mapped more strictly). Or at exit ramps (where I start a
placement=transition segment even with the start of the theoretical gore
and ends centered on the ramp through lanes, preventing consumers from
giving the instruction too soon as happens extending the ramp vector
straight line to the motorway or too late when going as close to the
physical bullnose as possible).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:

> That sounds very similar to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you
> determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single
> undivided way.
>


overtaking is a different issue, because it does not say whether you can
cross a dividing line, it says whether you can overtake another vehicle
(there may be sufficient space within the same lane or no road markings at
all, but you still cannot overtake when there is an overtaking restriction,
and you can overtake even with an uninterrupted divider when there is no
overtaking restriction, as long as you do not cross the divider line. At
least this is the legal situation in some countries where I am familiar
with the rules, not sure about the UK.

The overtaking flag does not say anything about implicit turning
restrictions anyway, so it really governs different situations.


Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 21:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
> frede...@remote.org>:
>
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
>> at junctions.
>
>
>
>
> this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't
> it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that
> cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction
> nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction
> relations which would be already implied?
>
> I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not
> fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which
> circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe
> we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal
> meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot
> be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can
> be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc.
>
>
> Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road?
>
> Centre cannot be crossed (all)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed)
>
> Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed)
>
>
>
> centre
> =no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/???
>
> Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the
> road driving.
>
That sounds very similar to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you
determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single
undivided way.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Warin]

On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm 
mailto:frede...@remote.org>>:


The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn
restrictions
at junctions.




this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, 
wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a 
line that cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this 
on the junction nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of 
turn restriction relations which would be already implied?


I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did 
not fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under 
which circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which 
meaning? Maybe we should not map the lines physically, but according 
to their legal meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): 
divider that cannot be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed 
legally, divider that can be crossed but only for turning left not for 
u-turns, etc.




Allowing for different diving on different sides of the road?

Centre cannot be crossed (all)

Centre cannot be crossed for U turns (turn offs allowed)

Centre cannot be crossed for turns (U turns allowed)

Centre cannot be crossed for turn offs (U turns, turn ons allowed)

Centre cannot be crossed for turn ons (U turns , turn offs allowed)



centre 
=no_crossing/no_u_crossing/no_turn_crossing/no_off_crossing/no_on_crossing/yes_crossing/???


Will need further though, but the above provides for either side of the 
road driving.



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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:

> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
> at junctions.




this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn restrictions, wouldn't
it be sufficient to tell the routing engine that there is a line that
cannot be crossed (and add a tag for interruptions to this on the junction
nodes where you can cross), and we could save a lot of turn restriction
relations which would be already implied?

I recall this was suggested many years ago, but for some reason it did not
fly. Maybe it is because it was too complicated to find out under which
circumstances (in which jurisdictions) white lines had which meaning? Maybe
we should not map the lines physically, but according to their legal
meaning, something like (shorter tags would be chosen): divider that cannot
be crossed (legally), divider that can be crossed legally, divider that can
be crossed but only for turning left not for u-turns, etc.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Markus]

Hi Frederik, hi everyone,

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 08:40, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it
> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
> is a good idea.

To your first question: i have the impression that the "physical
division -> separate ways; no physical division -> shared way"
principle usually is followed. One situation where it is not always
followed are motorway exits divided only by road markings.

To your second question: i think that local mapping deviations make
our map less usable. I would prefer if people who think that a rule
doesn't make sense don't simply ignore it, but discuss it on this
global mailing list.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).

I am one of those mappers - So disclaimer applies - i am tainted.

I am in favour of relaxing this rule. We currently have strips of
road where we currently handle this relaxed e.g. Motorway links or
exits where we (OSM Germany) map ~50% of the exits with completely
seperate ways although there is only a single line in the middle.

I'd like to use it for a 4 lane motorway size like road where is only
a double line in the middle. Double line means, not allowed to cross,
and additionally - no part of a vehicle may leap over the line. So 
in practice left turns are not allowed, u-turn is not allowed. And for
this specific strip foot and bicycle are disallowed and we had no speed
limit for years (Was introduced couple years back).

Rational:

Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the
middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn
restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience
mapping it one or the other way.
At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn.
From my experience this is very error prone.

I am doing a lot of QA concerning routing (100K routes every 2 hours for
the region i am mostly interested in). From the experience doing this
the last 6 years it shows that meanwhile handling of turn restrictions is 
causing 90% of routing problems due to people unintentional breaking,
abusing, misinterpreting or overcomplicating turn restrictions.

So - in other words. I am in favour of the KISS principle. Make
it easy for the average mapper and let them handle as they seem
fit. As a rule of thumb the current handling is okay. But there
is no "one size fits all". And I'd like to relax the rules 
in favour of reduced complexity.

And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document [1] which terms
it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided highways.
First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second - 
it does not make any statement about whether we MUST draw a non physically
divided highway as one line. (I dont oppose the fact that in 99% of the
cases it makes absolute sense to do so).

Flo
[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Dave Swarthout]

Asking OSM mappers if they have "strict standards" on this issue is chasing
a fantasy, IMHO. We discussed this in our local Thailand mapping forum and
AFAIK, it wasn't resolved. In one example, a five-lane highway with no
physical barrier and the "fifth lane" painted with big yellow stripes, the
mapper used two separate ways, both tagged oneway=yes to represent the
situation. I disagreed. My thinking is that OSM prefers having a physical
barrier before tagging two separate ways and I do too. By the way, Google
maps uses two lanes both tagged as oneway for this particular example.

YMMV

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
>
> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there
> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
>
> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
> at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping is
> violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone maps
> how they want.
>
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it
> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
> is a good idea.
>
> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it
> something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when
> choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have
> strict standards and definitions?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Oct 2019, 08:38 by frede...@remote.org:
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation
>
Splitting road on physical separation
seems to be a standard.

And painted line is not considered
as physical separation.

Among obvious reasons is consistency,
not changing popular things without really good reason and
routing for emergency vehicles.
Main issues is handling crossing
with dual carriageway - even without
physical separation on crossing itself
ways typically continue split in two,
or start splitting before crossing.

(I can send images if that is unclear)

It is also disputed whatever splitting
road on small separations like
crossing with island is advisable.
> andtwo, in how far is it
> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
> is a good idea.
>
It seems poor idea like retagging
highway=motorway into droga=autostrada
because local mappers dislike English.
> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied.
>
During travel I made edits
removing invalid separation (only
painted line) that I spotted.

I never felt that I needed to consult local
community or that opening note would be preferable.

In Poland some people expressed that changing
road mapped as two ways into single one is waste of time,
but I don't remember anyone claiming that it is wrong to do this.
Though I remember cases of highly complex
junctions where it seemed to be necessary/advisable
to not follow this rule.

Theoretical example: equivalent of Magic Roundabout in Swindon,
marked solely by paint, without physical separation
would be place where violating this rule
would make sense.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging