Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Mark Wagner 
> wrote:
> > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
> > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
> > line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
> > to drive across it for any reason.
>
> I would keep dual carriage way mapping for the cases with real
> physical barriers (such as guard rails or kerbs) or different surfaces
> (grass).
> IMHO, you loose valuable information by not mentioning there is a
> third lane in the middle.
> Emergency vehicles might want to know this, planning of very wide load
> transports might want to know this. Governments might need this
> information, so they know they can divert traffic over the middle lane
> in case of road works.
> There might be other applications that find this information valuable.
>

This tends to be my line of thinking as well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Rory McCann]

On 12/02/17 21:56, Mark Wagner wrote:
> I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
> law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
> line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
> to drive across it for any reason.

Umm... you shouldn't do this. The rule in OSM is that if you cannot
physically drive between the lanes, you should use 2 OSM ways. if you
can physically do it, then use one OSM way (even if that would be illegal).

There are plenty of roads in OSM which you cannot legally drive across
it (in IE/UK an unbroken white line in the middle), which are mapped as
one single OSM way.

You should maintain the OSM convention of single way implies they
"physicallity" of driving across, and says nothing about the legality of
that.




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

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Topographe Fou]

For your interest and according to Taginfo:

access:lanes > 4269 use
access:lanes:both_ways > 726 use
access:lanes:both_ways=no > 695 use (+ 24 use of value "no|no" )

Used mainly in central North America and Germany.

Yours, 

LeTopographeFou


  Message original  
De: letopographe...@gmail.com
Envoyé: 12 février 2017 12:47 PM
À: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" 
roads?

Marc, it looks like you propose to tag it as a lane which can be used to turn 
which is not what Roadsguy wants to do (if I get it right...).

If the central line can't be used but exists I would put

lanes:both_ways=1
access:lanes:both_ways=no

LeTopographeFou 

  Message original  
De: marc.ge...@gmail.com
Envoyé: 12 février 2017 7:40 AM
À: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" 
roads?

You could add lanes:both_ways=1 turn:lanes:both_ways=left

regards

m

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way, with
> a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for
> anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2 seems
> wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating the two
> travel lanes, and since there is no raised physical divider, it doesn't seem
> right to mark it as a dual-carriageway road either. I've seen lanes=3 used
> along with lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that seems like it
> might be confusing.
>
> What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?
>
> --Roadsguy
>
> ___
> 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] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-02-12 21:56 GMT+01:00 Mark Wagner :

> I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
> law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
> line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
> to drive across it for any reason.
>


you shouldn't do it, because it would be inserting wrong data: separate
ways indicate separate carriageways in OSM. There's a big difference
between not allowed and not possible.

There a divider tag proposed (but apperently inactive):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
apparently this tag has been started to being used since it was marked as
abandoned in 2008:


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Marc Gemis]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
> law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
> line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
> to drive across it for any reason.

I would keep dual carriage way mapping for the cases with real
physical barriers (such as guard rails or kerbs) or different surfaces
(grass).
IMHO, you loose valuable information by not mentioning there is a
third lane in the middle.
Emergency vehicles might want to know this, planning of very wide load
transports might want to know this. Governments might need this
information, so they know they can divert traffic over the middle lane
in case of road works.
There might be other applications that find this information valuable.

regards

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:39:00 -0500
Albert Pundt  wrote:

> Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each
> way, with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but
> not used for anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this
> with just lanes=2 seems wrong since it fails to take into account the
> lane width separating the two travel lanes, and since there is no
> raised physical divider, it doesn't seem right to mark it as a
> dual-carriageway road either. I've seen lanes=3 used along with
> lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that seems like it might be
> confusing.
> 
> What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?

I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
to drive across it for any reason.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Topographe Fou]

Marc, it looks like you propose to tag it as a lane which can be used to turn 
which is not what Roadsguy wants to do (if I get it right...).

If the central line can't be used but exists I would put

lanes:both_ways=1
access:lanes:both_ways=no

LeTopographeFou 


  Message original  
De: marc.ge...@gmail.com
Envoyé: 12 février 2017 7:40 AM
À: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" 
roads?

You could add lanes:both_ways=1 turn:lanes:both_ways=left

regards

m

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way, with
> a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for
> anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2 seems
> wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating the two
> travel lanes, and since there is no raised physical divider, it doesn't seem
> right to mark it as a dual-carriageway road either. I've seen lanes=3 used
> along with lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that seems like it
> might be confusing.
>
> What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?
>
> --Roadsguy
>
> ___
> 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] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Marc Gemis]

You could add lanes:both_ways=1 turn:lanes:both_ways=left

regards

m

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Albert Pundt  wrote:
> Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way, with
> a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for
> anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2 seems
> wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating the two
> travel lanes, and since there is no raised physical divider, it doesn't seem
> right to mark it as a dual-carriageway road either. I've seen lanes=3 used
> along with lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that seems like it
> might be confusing.
>
> What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?
>
> --Roadsguy
>
> ___
> 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] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Albert Pundt]

Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way,
with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for
anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2
seems wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating
the two travel lanes, and since there is no raised physical divider, it
doesn't seem right to mark it as a dual-carriageway road either. I've seen
lanes=3 used along with lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that
seems like it might be confusing.

What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?

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