Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > So what?  How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct
> choices that are objectively bad in retrospect?  Especially when fixing the
> problem makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and easier
> for new people to understand and map in the long term
>
>
> use a different key for the different definition. Promote it and see if
> others join you.
>

This complicates things for new mappers, who are invariably going to come
to the same conclusion of "what do you mean "lanes" doesn't literally mean
lanes?"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Dec 12, 2020, 14:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel <> j...@mueschelsoft.de> > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>  where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be 
>>  perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is 
>>  that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries 
>>  in the "XY:lanes" tags.
>>
>
> That disagrees with literally every lane editing and validation tool in 
> existence at this time.
>
Can you give examples of validation tools and lane editing software that 
disagrees
with it?

The proper solution would be to make tag traffic_lanes or something that
would count also bicycle lanes, not redefine lane tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> So what?  How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct choices 
> that are objectively bad in retrospect?  Especially when fixing the problem 
> makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and easier for new 
> people to understand and map in the long term


use a different key for the different definition. Promote it and see if others 
join you.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel  wrote:
>
> On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> >  > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
> >  > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly
> > corrects
> >  > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the
> other.
> >
> > The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as
> > lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's
> > time to reconsider that.
>
> I'm refering to the proposal of exactly this: the :lanes extension. It
> was clearly and unambiguously taken into account:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag
>
>
> That specific anchor says it's completely sidestepping the issue while
> highlighting the shortcoming of lanes=* as it stands now.  We need to fix
> lanes=* to mean all lanes.  This isn't a hard change to make
>
> It would redefine widely used tag.
>

So what?  How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct
choices that are objectively bad in retrospect?  Especially when fixing the
problem makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and easier
for new people to understand and map in the long term?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel <> j...@mueschelsoft.de> > wrote:
>
>> On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>  > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel 
>>  > <>> j...@mueschelsoft.de>>  
>>  > > j...@mueschelsoft.de>> >> wrote:
>>  > 
>>  >     On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>  > 
>>  >      > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
>>  >      > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly
>>  >     corrects
>>  >      > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the 
>> other.
>>  > 
>>  >     The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  > I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as 
>>  > lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's 
>>  > time to reconsider that.
>>  
>>  I'm refering to the proposal of exactly this: the :lanes extension. It 
>>  was clearly and unambiguously taken into account:
>>  >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag
>>
>
> That specific anchor says it's completely sidestepping the issue while 
> highlighting the shortcoming of lanes=* as it stands now.  We need to fix 
> lanes=* to mean all lanes.  This isn't a hard change to make
>
It would redefine widely used tag.

So we would need to resurcey all places where lanes tag is used.

And MapRoulette is not an answer in this case. It would only work if all 
11 millions tags would be in places where aerials is highly detailed, 
up to date and road is not covered by trees.

See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lanes

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel  wrote:

> On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> >  > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
> >  > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly
> > corrects
> >  > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the
> other.
> >
> > The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as
> > lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's
> > time to reconsider that.
>
> I'm refering to the proposal of exactly this: the :lanes extension. It
> was clearly and unambiguously taken into account:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag


That specific anchor says it's completely sidestepping the issue while
highlighting the shortcoming of lanes=* as it stands now.  We need to fix
lanes=* to mean all lanes.  This isn't a hard change to make, but it is a
necessary one to disambiguate lane tagging.

Which means any lane editor that sees the turn:lanes or access:lanes tag is
going to count that and go "OK, there's at least this many lanes" and fix
the count.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Jan Michel]

On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel 
> wrote:


On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:

 > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
 > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly
corrects
 > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the other.

The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.


I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as 
lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's 
time to reconsider that.


I'm refering to the proposal of exactly this: the :lanes extension. It 
was clearly and unambiguously taken into account:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag



Setting tags according to documentation is hardly "torquing tags". 


Which "lane editor" do you refer to? If any tool does this, it needs
to be fixed.


JOSM.

Please be more precise. JOSM has no built-in lane-editor.




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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel  wrote:

> On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect
> > documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly corrects
> > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the other.
>
> The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
>

I'm pretty sure it was done without consideration for reserved lanes as
lane access tagging wasn't something yet available.  Now it is, and it's
time to reconsider that.


> Setting tags according to documentation is hardly "torquing tags".

Which "lane editor" do you refer to? If any tool does this, it needs
> to be fixed.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Jan Michel]

On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote:

Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect 
documentation.  As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly corrects 
it to lanes=5, since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the other.


The "incorrect documentation" was voted on and it was approved.
Setting tags according to documentation is hardly "torquing tags".
Which "lane editor" do you refer to? If any tool does this, it needs
to be fixed.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jan Michel  wrote:

> On 12.12.20 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be
> > perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is
> > that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of
> entries
> > in the "XY:lanes" tags.
> >
> >
> > That disagrees with literally every lane editing and validation tool in
> > existence at this time.
>
> Please check for example this way:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406235586
>
> It perfectly validates in all tools I tried - JOSM, OSMI, Keepright...
> Rendering in the lane attribute style in JOSM is fine as well.
>
> Even the examples in the Wiki show exactly this:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
>
> It was mentioned in the original proposal for the :lanes suffix 8 years
> ago.
>
> So, it *agrees* "with literally every lane editing and validation tool
> in existence" as well as documentation.
>

Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect documentation.
As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly corrects it to lanes=5,
since you have 2 lanes in one way and 3 in the other.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Jan Michel]

On 12.12.20 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel 
> wrote:


Hi,
where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be
perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is
that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries
in the "XY:lanes" tags.


That disagrees with literally every lane editing and validation tool in 
existence at this time.


Please check for example this way:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406235586

It perfectly validates in all tools I tried - JOSM, OSMI, Keepright...
Rendering in the lane attribute style in JOSM is fine as well.

Even the examples in the Wiki show exactly this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles

It was mentioned in the original proposal for the :lanes suffix 8 years ago.

So, it *agrees* "with literally every lane editing and validation tool 
in existence" as well as documentation.



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel  wrote:

> Hi,
> where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be
> perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is
> that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries
> in the "XY:lanes" tags.
>

That disagrees with literally every lane editing and validation tool in
existence at this time.


> On the other hand, the "lanes" tag has some real problems, e.g.
> lanes = 2
> lanes:psv = 1
> lanes:hov = 1
> Is there any lane for regular traffic or not?
>

That shouldn't be relevant to whether or not a lane counts as a lane


> In my opinion the "lanes" tag is just a rough estimate for the width and
> capacity of a road -


You're actually describing the width=* tag, not the lanes=* tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Jan Michel]

Hi,
where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be 
perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is 
that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries 
in the "XY:lanes" tags.


On the other hand, the "lanes" tag has some real problems, e.g.
lanes = 2
lanes:psv = 1
lanes:hov = 1
Is there any lane for regular traffic or not?

In my opinion the "lanes" tag is just a rough estimate for the width and 
capacity of a road - all actual numbers have to be read from more 
detailed tags such as cycleway, busway and all XY:lanes.


Jan


On 09.12.20 00:19, Paul Johnson wrote:
I've been saying for a while now that it's time we fix the tagging 
problems with bicycle and motorcycle lanes by /actually including them 
as lanes/, because it cleanly handles exactly this kind of situation 
concisely and cleanly.  They're still lanes, just a reserved kind of 
lane like a carpool lane or HOV lane.  JOSM already handles this with 
its lane tagging features beautifully.  Any data consumers that can deal 
with lane access (which, if they're not, this is /already/ a bug, 
because HOV and bus lanes are things, too) will be able to handle it 
without problems.


Or we can just keep trying to pretend bicycle lanes aren't actually 
lanes and try to figure out how to fix something while simultaneously 
keeping it permanently broken because the original lanes proposal only 
considered private motorists.



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Jan Michel via Tagging]

On 08.12.20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

highway, name, lit=yes, surface=asphalt etc
oneway=yes
oneway:biycle=no
lanes=1 (as bicycle lanes are not counted)
vehicle:lanes:forward=no|yes
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
turn:bicycle:lanes:forward=left|
turn:lanes:forward=|
vehicle:lanes:backward=no
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated
cycleway:left=lane
cycleway:right= - there is left turn lane only, so 
cycleway:right=lane would be
not entirely correct but there is a left turn lane, cycleway:right would 
be worse


In my opinion this is correct. There is no cycleway:right here. The 
:lanes tags describe the situation perfectly well.


You can add
cycleway:left:oneway = no
That adds "there is a cycleway on the left, and it can be used in both 
directions".


Jan


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 14:08 2020-12-08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging đã viết:

Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help.

I am forwarding this a bit weird case.

Photo is at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).jpg 


and depicts

- contraflow bicycle lane
- bicycle-only left turn lane (signed left turn)
- general purpose lane (unsigned turn)

How this should be tagged?

Following is my idea but...

highway, name, lit=yes, surface=asphalt etc
oneway=yes
oneway:biycle=no
lanes=1 (as bicycle lanes are not counted)
vehicle:lanes:forward=no|yes
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
turn:bicycle:lanes:forward=left|
turn:lanes:forward=|
vehicle:lanes:backward=no
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated





cycleway:left=lane
cycleway:right= - there is left turn lane only, so 
cycleway:right=lane would be
not entirely correct but there is a left turn lane, cycleway:right would 
be worse


I've always understood the cycleway:left/right=lane to refer to the 
presence of a bike lane on one side of the physical roadway or the 
other, regardless of the direction that lane travels. After all, the 
keys aren't cycleway:forward/backward. For example, in a country that 
drives on the right, a contraflow bike lane on the right side of the 
roadway would be tagged cycleway:right=opposite_lane, not 
cycleway:left=lane.


A *:lanes key might be one way to clarify the layout of that part of the 
road: cycleway:left=lane cycleway:left:lanes=2. But note that the turn 
lane tagging you suggested above is distinct from the considerations 
around cycleway:*; your suggested tagging for turn lanes seems 
reasonable to me.


[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright%3Alanes

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:09 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help.
>
> I am forwarding this a bit weird case.
>
> Photo is at
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).jpg
> and depicts
>
> - contraflow bicycle lane
> - bicycle-only left turn lane (signed left turn)
> - general purpose lane (unsigned turn)
>
> How this should be tagged?
>
> Following is my idea but...
>
> highway, name, lit=yes, surface=asphalt etc
> oneway=yes
> oneway:biycle=no
> lanes=1 (as bicycle lanes are not counted)
> vehicle:lanes:forward=no|yes
> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
> turn:bicycle:lanes:forward=left|
> turn:lanes:forward=|
> vehicle:lanes:backward=no
> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:right= - there is left turn lane only, so cycleway:right=lane
> would be
> not entirely correct but there is a left turn lane, cycleway:right would
> be worse
>

I've been saying for a while now that it's time we fix the tagging problems
with bicycle and motorcycle lanes by *actually including them as lanes*,
because it cleanly handles exactly this kind of situation concisely and
cleanly.  They're still lanes, just a reserved kind of lane like a carpool
lane or HOV lane.  JOSM already handles this with its lane tagging features
beautifully.  Any data consumers that can deal with lane access (which, if
they're not, this is *already* a bug, because HOV and bus lanes are things,
too) will be able to handle it without problems.

cycleway=lane
lanes=3
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=1
access:lanes:forward=no|yes
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
turn:lanes:forward=left|
access:lanes:backward=no
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated

Or we can just keep trying to pretend bicycle lanes aren't actually lanes
and try to figure out how to fix something while simultaneously keeping it
permanently broken because the original lanes proposal only considered
private motorists.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help.

I am forwarding this a bit weird case.

Photo is at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).jpg
and depicts 

- contraflow bicycle lane
- bicycle-only left turn lane (signed left turn)
- general purpose lane (unsigned turn)

How this should be tagged?

Following is my idea but...

highway, name, lit=yes, surface=asphalt etc
oneway=yes
oneway:biycle=no
lanes=1 (as bicycle lanes are not counted)
vehicle:lanes:forward=no|yes
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yesturn:bicycle:lanes:forward=left|
turn:lanes:forward=|
vehicle:lanes:backward=no
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated
cycleway:left=lane
cycleway:right= - there is left turn lane only, so cycleway:right=lane 
would be
not entirely correct but there is a left turn lane, cycleway:right would be 
worse
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging