Wikipedia seems to be incomplete on this; I'm presently unaware of any
state that has a statewide prohibition.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:22 AM, John F. Eldredge
wrote:
> On February 9, 2015 4:32:36 AM CST, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
On February 9, 2015 4:32:36 AM CST, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt
> wrote:
>
> > In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open
> to
> > bicycles,
> > where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these
> as
> > bike pat
2015-02-02 18:06 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> parking:lane=emergency seems like a good value.
emergency stops are typically not considered "parking". I don't think its a
good idea to use something with "parking" for emergency lanes tagging.
cheers,
Martin
___
2015-02-02 16:03 GMT+01:00 AYTOUN RALPH :
> The highway=motorway already implies that there is two or more lanes plus
> an emergency hard shoulder
no, highway=motorway implies that it is a motorway. These can also have
just one lane (exceptional case) and do not need to have a hard shoulder
(al
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, fly wrote:
> Am 06.02.2015 um 14:00 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> > In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to
> > bicycles,
> > where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as
> > bike paths to avoid the tag soup of l
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to
> bicycles,
> where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as
> bike paths to avoid the tag soup of lanes,
> and ensure the (unusual) situation is
Am 06.02.2015 um 14:00 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to
> bicycles,
> where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as
> bike paths to avoid the tag soup of lanes,
> and ensure the (unusual) situation is perfectly
In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to
bicycles,
where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as
bike paths to avoid the tag soup of lanes,
and ensure the (unusual) situation is perfectly clear.
___
I forgot about this case, too, even though it's increasingly common in the
US (ostensibly to help cyclists get out of the door zone and feel more
comfortable cycling, but inevitably this arrangement causes an inescapable
curbside door zone, pedestrians not looking to cross a lane of traffic
between
I don't understand that comment... I am not declaring anything - at
worst I am making an incorrect assumption to catalyse a bit of a debate
(which seems to be working)...
How do we show the difference between legal and physical restrictions?
Looking at the wiki page for the access tag, its ope
Am 03.02.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
> all?
In the lanes:-tagging system it would work like:
boulder|lane|lane|boulder|turn-lane|bicycle lane
access:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes|no
bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|no|no|design
Am 03.02.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Welty:
> On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
>> restrictions
>>
>>
> but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
> routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed
On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
restrictions
but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes.
richard
--
rwe...@averillpark.net
Averill Park N
OK so it is a kind of buffer to keep the motorised traffic out of the
way of the bikes. Are there any circumstances under which any kind of
vehicle is permitted to be in that lane (while it is not a turn lane)?
That sounds too complex for highway=primary (or whatever) and
cycleway=lane. Levera
Yesterday I had the following case on a dual carriageway - lanes from left
to right:
* two regular lanes
* one shoulder
* one bicycle lane
Sometimes the shoulder changes to a turning lane and back to a shoulder
after a junction. There is no physical separation whatsoever of all those
four lanes. A
Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional toll
plaza?
On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
> A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
> illustrate your scenario.
>
> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
> shoulder=left/r
A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
illustrate your scenario.
Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
shoulder=left/right/both should cover it.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"?
On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2015
2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
>
Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. Access=breakdown or access=emergency
wouldn't answer your question unambiguously either. Are you concerned
about the name ("which lane is called the shoulder?") or the function
("which lane should I dump the car in if it breaks down?" or "can I use
this lane if
Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
restrictions given by hgv, psv, bus, motor_vehicle etc according to what
type of emergency vehicle you are routing for. A police motorcycle is
not the same as a 10-wheel fire truck or a huge mobile crane on the
direction of the p
Hi!
2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty :
> On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or
>> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere
>> mortals. No need for access=emergency.
>>
> then how do
On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or
barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and
mere mortals. No need for access=emergency.
then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?
th
Getting back on topic for a moment Hard shoulders should be
access=no, not access=breakdown or access=emergency (the last two
shouldn't even exist IMHO). The baseline is that you shouldn't be there
at all. You get away with it if you have permission (blue lights) or no
choice (breakdown) alt
On Feb 3, 2015 4:11 AM, "Philip Barnes" wrote:
>
> On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
> >
> > "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
> > the vehicle"
On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
> the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?
>
Running
On Feb 3, 2015 3:37 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
>>
>>
>> And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as
such, prohibite
On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as
such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this
in a state
Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
all?
2015-02-03 10:05 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
> it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their dying
> vehicle as far as possible
On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
>
> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as such,
prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this in a
state known for having a high number of "rez cars
Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their
dying vehicle as far as possible to the right (left in the UK), well, we
don't need to tag for that because it is standard. If the intention is
to go against
Hi!
2015-02-02 18:06 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote:
>
>> Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think
>> that is my main question. Do we have one for that?
>>
>
> parking:lane=emergency seems like a good value.
>
But those lan
Am 02.02.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Still the question is unanswered: if, for example, one lane is a
> emergency/shoulder lane during night and a regular lane during day, how
> may we map this?
>
> access:lanes=yes|yes|now_it_is_a_shoulder @ night
> access:lanes=yes|yes|yes @ day
On t
On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote:
>
>
> 2015-02-02 15:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only
>>
> Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that
> is my main question. Do we have one for that?
>
p
Still the question is unanswered: if, for example, one lane is a
emergency/shoulder lane during night and a regular lane during day, how may
we map this?
access:lanes=yes|yes|now_it_is_a_shoulder @ night
access:lanes=yes|yes|yes @ day
So what should we use for now_it_is_a_shoulder? Any what about
Now your question is a lot clearer.
The highway=motorway already implies that there is two or more lanes plus
an emergency hard shoulder, but this does not apply to other highways. The
only other tag is the highway=escape which is something completely
different.
I am not aware of any other tag that
2015-02-02 15:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only
>
Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that
is my main question. Do we have one for that?
___
Tagging mailing lis
Seems like a combination of parking tags and access tags are in order.
Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only,
bicycle=yes, foot=yes unless posted otherwise or, in Oklahoma's case,
there's a minimum speed posted...
On Feb 2, 2015 8:32 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote:
> I agree
Unfortunately things are changing regarding the Hard Shoulder on UK
motorways. During times of congestion the Hard Shoulder is opened up to
alleviate some of the problem by allow traffic to use it to get to the next
off ramp and leave the motorway. So access=no would only apply some of the
time (an
I agree that access=no (or vehicle=no) leads in the right direction, but we
are still missing the information that it might be accessed in case of
break downs or similar. No? Or don't we care about that?
2015-02-02 15:07 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> Assuming you are talking about the "hard shoulder
Assuming you are talking about the "hard shoulder" AKA "emergency lane"
on motorways, in NL and GB it would quite simply be "access=no". The
only exceptions are if you break down, if you are an emergency service,
or if you are instructed to by the police (or similar authority).
On 2015-02-02 1
Hi!
If shoulder lanes are mapped (for whatever reason!), what access
restrictions should we apply? A simple vehicle=no doesn't seem right to me.
In some countries those lanes may be accessed regularly, e.g. by
pedestrians or motorcycles, so foot=yes + motorcycle=yes is obvious, but
what would be t
41 matches
Mail list logo
