Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two pictures of it (in one) Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, as if it were lanes=1. Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters of space to the fence on the other side of the road. Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, either. http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? Sometimes the answer is It doesn't matter. If you tagged it with lanes=1, but not oneway=yes, then it's clearly a bottleneck and should be avoided by routers. If you didn't tag lanes=* at all and you didn't have oneway=yes then my assumption would be lanes=2 (because it's not one way). Or you could tag it explicitly with lanes=2. Either way, map users would probably complain that it's too narrow for certain types of vehicle, so it should be re-tagged lanes=1. If you tagged the width then it wouldn't matter if it was lanes=1 or lanes=2 because we can see the overall width and use heuristics to decide if it's a slow road or 'normal' road. Furthermore, if it's classified as highway=residential that would be a hint that it's a narrow road not to be driven too fast. Any of these factors, either assumed, or explicit, should be used by a route planner to make this road unattractive for routing. It's very tempting to add explicit values for every tag, but I really think sometimes it just doesn't matter, and we can get the same meaning for combinations of other tags (even if the tags are absent). Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two pictures of it (in one) Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, as if it were lanes=1. Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters of space to the fence on the other side of the road. Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, either. http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? Sometimes the answer is It doesn't matter. If you tagged it with lanes=1, but not oneway=yes, then it's clearly a bottleneck and should be avoided by routers. If you didn't tag lanes=* at all and you didn't have oneway=yes then my assumption would be lanes=2 (because it's not one way). Or you could tag it explicitly with lanes=2. Either way, map users would probably complain that it's too narrow for certain types of vehicle, so it should be re-tagged lanes=1. If you tagged the width then it wouldn't matter if it was lanes=1 or lanes=2 because we can see the overall width and use heuristics to decide if it's a slow road or 'normal' road. Furthermore, if it's classified as highway=residential that would be a hint that it's a narrow road not to be driven too fast. Any of these factors, either assumed, or explicit, should be used by a route planner to make this road unattractive for routing. It's very tempting to add explicit values for every tag, but I really think sometimes it just doesn't matter, and we can get the same meaning for combinations of other tags (even if the tags are absent). Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Those examples are very good. Any chance we could get some license-compatible photos in the near future? 2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 10:19 +0200, Ronnie Soak wrote: I would only use a lanes value other than 2 if there are clear road markings, signs or it is otherwise very clear that two cars are supposed to go in one direction at a time (=3) I am not aware of any special signage on 3 lane roads in the UK. It is just a knowledge of the highway code that gives you the rules. 1. Solid double lines on your side mean do not cross, traffic in the opposite direction has solo use of the centre lane. Also broken line on your side and solid double lines on the other side mean your direction has exclusive use of the centre lane. 2. Broken and solid line on your side, traffic in the opposite direction has priority use of centre lane but you can overtake if it is clear and nobody is signalling their intent to pull out. Usually uphill traffic will have priority in this case. 3. Both sides have a broken line and have equal priority to use the centre lane to overtake. Have not seen one of these for years. However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM tagging. or there is no way for two cars to pass without a special (signed) passing place (1). There is always a way. There are lots of single track minor roads, that have no passing places and high hedges close to the road. Passing can involve a long reverse and squeeze into a gateway or pull onto any bit of grass verge that may be there. Official passing places are also supposed to be used to allow faster traffic to pass, a rule many city dwellers are totally unaware of, much to the annoyance of locals. I can remember a public information film, in the 70s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
As no further issues were raised with the updated article I will replace the current lanes-article with my current version. Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As lanes=1.5 wasn't documented before and is used very rarely (0.05% of all lanes tags) it shouldn't delay the update of the lanes-article. I also removed the none value in the first example, so that people are not encouraged to not explicitly tag the lanes value. I hope that most people are happy with this update. I'll translate the article into german and maybe into russian, when I got the time. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two pictures of it (in one) Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, as if it were lanes=1. Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters of space to the fence on the other side of the road. Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, either. http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a residential road. I wouldn't expect many trucks in this zone, but if I were to map more detail I'd add a width-tag. Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. Only in the utopia where all drivers can confidently manouver their cars at speed to gaps only 10-20 cm wider than their car. Most people don't. The white car already has it's right hand wheels outside the normal driving surface. And this is early spring, there are no tree/scrub branches delineating the fences, or any snow limiting such attempts at scraping the fences with the side mirror. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com hat am 29. April 2012 um 17:39 geschrieben: 2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png Which value would people use for the lanes=*? I think I wouldn't tag any lanes explicitly here. Looks like a residential road. I wouldn't expect many trucks in this zone, but if I were to map more detail I'd add a width-tag. +1 Any 'default' assumption of any user of the data would give a value between 1 and 2 anyway. As you can see, an assumption of 2 may be the better one here - if you take passenger cars into account. As you can see, an assumption of 1 would be the better one here - if you take lorries into account. Independently of 1, 1.5 or 2 any router would consider this road with nearly the same value for the traffic considerations. Any renderer has a better info with width. What info do you think has lanes=1.5 then? What do you think a user can derive from this info? Looks as if 2 cars can pass each other without big problems. +1 At least no problems regarding traffic time or the mere usage to reach the point you want. But look at the pole right behind - I think they won't try to pass everywhere without advanced caution. Georg___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. It is indeed similar, and I do indeed tag these places with bicycle=permissive cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Apr 29, 2012 10:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/4/29 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Isn't that equal to cycling on sidewalks: we shouldn't tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes (in coutries where cyclists may not use them), even if only a dozen or so get a fine each year. It is indeed similar, and I do indeed tag these places with bicycle=permissive If bicycles aren't allowed, but it's not consistently enforced, how is this not bicycle=no? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
The narrow road example was clearly the wrong image. I changed that to lanes=1 and added a photo from Philip Barnes as example for a narrow two-lane road. Further I removed the assumptions for two-way motorways/trunks, as it is recommend to map their carriageways as two separate way. Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? And should I add a recommendation to always tag the lane count, also e.g. for residentials? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can be misinterpreted by any one (not only applications). I still don't know if 1.5 means an intermediate status between 2 lanes and 1 lane segments or a wide single lane or a normal lane plus a half size lane or two narrow lanes. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can be misinterpreted by any one (not only applications). I still don't know if 1.5 means an intermediate status between 2 lanes and 1 lane segments a wide single lane a normal lane plus a half size lane two narrow lanes ...While I didn't fully understand the first definition. ...I don't find much different between those definitions but perhaps you can enlighten me if there's anything else than some fancy wordsmithing looking into the very same road from different angles? :-) -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Martin Vonwald Anyone else has a problem with the suggested solution to the lanes=1.5 problem? I think we should simply recommend to not use fractions since they can be misinterpreted by any one (not only applications). I still don't know if 1.5 means an intermediate status between 2 lanes and 1 lane segments a wide single lane a normal lane plus a half size lane two narrow lanes ...While I didn't fully understand the first definition. ...I don't find much different between those definitions but perhaps you can enlighten me if there's anything else than some fancy wordsmithing looking into the very same road from different angles? :-) Btw, IMHO these plurar definitions you gave for the same thing is one of the reasons why lanes=1.5 appears in the db in the first place. The width alternative hardly conveys all the same meaning as it cannot say lanes=1+wide and lanes=2+narrow at the same time! -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen if there's anything else than some fancy wordsmithing looking into the very same road from different angles? :-) Well, sometimes you have 1 lane, sometimes 2, or something in between. Sometimes it is related to the width, sometimes only about the painting on the road. It is bit more than fancy wordsmithing. It is simply impossible to interpret. As Martin said, it is too subjective and should be avoided. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
I'm quite happy with lanes=n where n is an integer. I am very happy to assume that a one-way road without lanes=* has only one lane. I am also happy to assume that a not-one-way road without lanes=* has two lanes (one in each direction). I am extremely happy to see a width=* tag that I can use in conjunction with the lane count (even if the lane count is assumed). It tells me the width of each lane. A lane count of 1.5 is very confusing. What does it mean? What is the width of each lane? Is it really 1.5? Should it be 1.55, or 1.4, or 1.6? It's more useful to tell me width of the road. Then, if there is one lane I can see maybe it's very wide, or if two lanes I can see maybe they are very narrow. It's okay to let me assume the number of lanes because the assumption is safe, and if it's really wrong then someone will tag it properly later. In summary, I think simpler is better. A non-integer lane count is useless. Use the width tag. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane marking in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen sections of road where lines end where the road narrows. Will try to find an example. I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below this minimum, and would tend to prefer the width tag. Whilst following cars, it has occurred to me that knowing their width would be a reasonable yardstick for estimating the width of a road. Phil On 27/04/2012 10:29 Andrew Errington wrote: I'm quite happy with lanes=n where n is an integer. I am very happy to assume that a one-way road without lanes=* has only one lane. I am also happy to assume that a not-one-way road without lanes=* has two lanes (one in each direction). I am extremely happy to see a width=* tag that I can use in conjunction with the lane count (even if the lane count is assumed). It tells me the width of each lane. A lane count of 1.5 is very confusing. What does it mean? What is the width of each lane? Is it really 1.5? Should it be 1.55, or 1.4, or 1.6? It's more useful to tell me width of the road. Then, if there is one lane I can see maybe it's very wide, or if two lanes I can see maybe they are very narrow. It's okay to let me assume the number of lanes because the assumption is safe, and if it's really wrong then someone will tag it properly later. In summary, I think simpler is better. A non-integer lane count is useless. Use the width tag. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 27. April 2012 12:01 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: I am not sure I would want to add a lanes tag where the width falls below this minimum, and would tend to prefer the width tag. +1 Whilst following cars, it has occurred to me that knowing their width would be a reasonable yardstick for estimating the width of a road. for regular cars, 1,60-1,90 might be a good (European) approximation, add ~25-30cm for 2 mirrors. Minivans (e.g. Mercedes Sprinter) are around 2 m without mirrors, trucks are around 2,50). http://www.mercedes-benz.com.cy/content/cyprus/mpc/mpc_cyprus_website/enng/home_mpc/trucks_/home/long_distance/actros_long_distance_haulage/Cabs.0004.html cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and forget about them. They are too subjective. What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.899274,12.464333spn=0.008497,0.021136t=hz=16layer=ccbll=41.899391,12.464289panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXgcbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 When the lanes are marked on the ground, it ought to be an offence to drive continuously on the lines separating lanes; hence, there are only three lanes in the link above, even if some or many drivers think they can get away with it. Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.876836,12.481943spn=0.000378,0.00066t=hz=21 Changing lanes and overtaking within an intersection ought to be an offence in developed countries, so from the modelling point of view there can only be as many lanes as there are on any of the incoming or outgoing carriageways. vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, it will always remain unclear which width is the street. There are those roads (yes, roughly 4 meters wide) that, based on the overall setting, can not be called two lane roads, but it would be misleading to tag them with lanes=1, either. Aren't we supposed to safely assume that every road can be tagged with some correct lanes tag? -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: Heheh... :-) ...there's one major difference between 1.5 and=2.5, ie., whether the traffic in one direction almost always interferes with the opposite direction of the traffic, in the latter case it shouldn't happen So you mean 1.5 is the same as 1 regarding the almost always interfere? ;-) Georg in the mood too - but in jolly springtime mood ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 27. April 2012 12:18 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and forget about them. They are too subjective. What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.899274,12.464333spn=0.008497,0.021136t=hz=16layer=ccbll=41.899391,12.464289panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXgcbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 When the lanes are marked on the ground, it ought to be an offence to drive continuously on the lines separating lanes; hence, there are only three lanes in the link above, even if some or many drivers think they can get away with it. It's not that they think they get away with it: they _do_ get away with it. If everybody in this area drives in a certain style, and police doesn't enforce the official rules, then there are factually more lanes on the ground than painted on the road. Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.876836,12.481943spn=0.000378,0.00066t=hz=21 Changing lanes and overtaking within an intersection ought to be an offence in developed countries, so from the modelling point of view there can only be as many lanes as there are on any of the incoming or outgoing carriageways. not sure, this is a point where _several_ (4) carriageways meet, each of them with at least 2 lanes, and they don't go all in one direction but in two, where for one of these it is also unclear how many lanes there are (the other are 2.4 I'd say ;-) ). vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, it will always remain unclear which width is the street. There are those roads (yes, roughly 4 meters wide) that, based on the overall setting, can not be called two lane roads, but it would be misleading to tag them with lanes=1, either. yes, and even lanes=1.4 or 1.6 will be unclear. In these cases (which usually also don't have painted lanes) the best thing to do is omit the lanes tag and go for width. See also above in this thread. Aren't we supposed to safely assume that every road can be tagged with some correct lanes tag? IMHO no, but if you insist on setting them, what about lanes=1, oneway=no, width=4? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 27.04.2012 09:23, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: Heheh... :-) ...there's one major difference between 1.5 and=2.5, ie., whether the traffic in one direction almost always interferes with the opposite direction of the traffic, in the latter case it shouldn't happen So you mean 1.5 is the same as 1 regarding the almost always interfere? ;-) ...A more appropriate word would be somewhat stronger prevents for real lanes=1 I suppose, but I'm not native so I might be wrong? ;-) (Or alternatively one needs a road excursion / passing place). ...Besides, this distinction based on interfering is mostly mean to differentiate from normal lanes=2 road, not from lanes=1 one. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Wouldn't this discussion benefit from a summary of the use cases we are trying to address? I see multiple semantics being suggested for the lanes tag, and at the end of the day we will have to choose one. * Renderers such as mapnik might want to reflect the number of lanes in the width of the line * Routers might use the lane count (along with many other attributes) in heuristics for the road capacity and travel time * Other renderers might try to derive a picture of the road or junction Sometimes it's about what is painted on the road; sometimes it's how many vehicles fit across the road; sometimes it's something else. If we choose one definition for the lanes tag, and allow the other definition to be derived by combining lanes=* with something else, then everyone could be happy. To choose one definition above the other options we should look at which is likely to be the most useful to the most users (in the broadest sense). The minority use cases will then be able to derive what they need by combining tags. As a simple example, on a motorway with 3 normal lanes plus a hard shoulder, we could have lanes=3 and shoulder=yes in one model, or lanes=4 shoulder=yes in another model. In either case, provided the semantics of the tags are applied consistently, one can satisfy all the use cases I listed above. If there are narrower lane This is a classic case of a discussion dragging on for hundreds of posts discussing different points of view (and there's nothing wrong with that of course) without a common cause to allow the discussion to converge. If we only discuss how to put things INTO the data without a view of how we (and others) might want to USE that data, we will end up with nobody being happy. If this situation arose on my project I would be having SERIOUS discussions with the customer - maybe the project should never have been started. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:54:26 Ilpo Järvinen wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Andrew Errington wrote: A lane count of 1.5 is very confusing. What does it mean? What is the width of each lane? Is it really 1.5? Should it be 1.55, or 1.4, or 1.6? ...No, it's not multiple of some magical default lane width like you imply. But simply _something_ between normal lanes=1 and normal lanes=2. But the width=* tag tells you this. Specifically, the width tag tells you if there will be a problem *for you*. Since I have never met you and I don't know what vehicle you are using it would be presumptious of me to tell you that there are 1.5 lanes. Also, it doesn't make sense to allow lanes=1.5 but deny 1.55, 1.4, 1.68 or any other fractional value. What you are doing is introducing a 'special' value with a special meaning. I think we should try to avoid having to interpret special cases. It's more useful to tell me width of the road. Then, if there is one lane I can see maybe it's very wide, or if two lanes I can see maybe they are very narrow. ...But how can I tag you this: A road which is lanes=1+wide _AND_ lanes=2+narrow at the same time? ...You ask me to provide width and select one of those two, and that is what I oppose, unless you give me some real tag that is not width to tell that 'hey, there really isn't lanes marked (which makes it kind of lanes=1) but two can somewhat fit (which makes it kind of lanes=2 but not really because it's only somewhat)'! ...What I would not want to do is to tag those lanes=1 because that's certainly a lie as anyone can clearly see after observing some bidirectional traffic there. It's not a lie. A single lane may be bidirectional. In fact, in this case you *should* tag it lanes=1. If oneway=yes is not present then it means one bidirectional lane. In summary, I think simpler is better. A non-integer lane count is useless. Use the width tag. I oppose using width tag (at least alone) for this because it won't convey the double meaning. Some other tag than width and tagging with lanes=2 perhaps (like I already suggested much earlier)? I don't think there is a double meaning. lanes=1 tells me there is one lane. It does not mean one direction, nor should anyone assume that. I *think* you are saying that lanes=1.5 tells me this road is not really wide enough for two-way traffic, but there *is* two-way traffic so if there is a car coming the other way you have to wait[1]. For the purpose of discussion, let us assume that a road of 2.5 m width is too narrow for cars to pass. lanes=1 width=2.5 tells me the same thing (one narrow lane, cars travel both directions, but only one direction at a time). lanes=2 width=2.5 tells me the same thing (two very narrow lanes, cars travel both directions, but only one direction at a time). lanes=1 tells me the same thing (one lane implies cars cannot travel both directions at the same time, but no oneway=yes tag implies cars can travel in both directions. We don't know the width but there must have been a reason for a mapper to tag it with lanes=1). width=2.5 tells me the same thing (no lanes=* tag and no oneway=yes tag implies two lanes, but both must be very narrow therefore cars can only travel one direction at a time). I don't think any of these assumptions are unreasonable, and they don't alter the existing meaning of the tags, which I believe are already quite clear, so we should use them and not alter them with special cases. Best wishes, Andrew [1] I have made this sentence to interpret what lanes=1.5 means. If my understanding is incorrect please state what lanes=1.5 actually means. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald wrote: Maybe we could put an end to this discussion by enumerating the pro and cons for both approaches? What exactly is the problem with lanes=integer+width, that is solved with lanes=1.5 ? Please pick the integer first so we can discuss more. ...Although I think I've already explained it multiple times for both possible values :-). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 10:01 +, Philip Barnes wrote: Through observations I can see that there is a minimum width for lane marking in the UK. I am not sure what the value is, but have seen sections of road where lines end where the road narrows. Will try to find an example. Sorry its been too wet to go out and take photos. An example where the road become too narrow for lane markings as it crosses a bridge, the lines recommence on the other side when the road becomes wide enough. http://g.co/maps/7svgs Again lines end where the road becomes too narrow, cars can pass but you have to wait for anything much larger. http://g.co/maps/3y7ja Maybe this one is silly, http://g.co/maps/atszn The road is a lot less than 3m wide, the lines indicate a warning for the give way as it reaches the trunk road ahead. It is still a single lane. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input during this discussion. Please take a look at the section Lanes reserved for specific vehicles. While writing the update I became aware of a difference regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. Also take a look at the section Assumptions. I added there a row for motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. We have these on the M6 and M42. Thanks Phil On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote: To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input during this discussion. Please take a look at the section Lanes reserved for specific vehicles. While writing the update I became aware of a difference regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. Also take a look at the section Assumptions. I added there a row for motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
It is an additional lane that will be opened for the general traffic during rush hours. What I have seen in the Netherlands it is used as emergency lanes at other times. Martin 2012/4/26 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. We have these on the M6 and M42. Thanks Phil On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote: To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input during this discussion. Please take a look at the section Lanes reserved for specific vehicles. While writing the update I became aware of a difference regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. Also take a look at the section Assumptions. I added there a row for motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
There are three cases in NL, all referred to as spitsstrook (literally, rush-hour lane): 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right 2) the left-most lane is sometimes open (if traffic is heavier), and sometimes closed (if the extra capacity is not needed). When it is closed, it is not designated as an emergency lane, but as emergency vehicles can do what they like anyway, they don't hesitate to use it. I am not sure if a normal driver is allowed to park there in case of a breakdown. Even if it is allowed, I would most definitely advise against it... 3) there is one case of a reversible centre lane which is either closed, open in one direction (morning peak) or open in the other direction (evening peak). Of course there are barriers on both sides to insulate it from the main carriageways on either side. Colin On 26/04/2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote: It is an additional lane that will be opened for the general traffic during rush hours. What I have seen in the Netherlands it is used as emergency lanes at other times. Martin 2012/4/26 Philip Barnesp...@trigpoint.me.uk: Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale: 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right this case is used in Germany in several regions e.g. http://www.staufreieshessen2015.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMWVL_15/Staufrei_Internet/med/c6f/c6f50ce6-66e7-3e21-79cd-aae2389e4818,---- and this leads very fast to the question: Shall this lane - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane The article is ambiguous here. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: Shall this lane - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane, that is sometimes open for traffic and sometimes not. The article is ambiguous here. Managed lanes shall be counted. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26. April 2012 15:37 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: Shall this lane - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane, that is sometimes open for traffic and sometimes not. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
I added a sentence explaining what a managed lane is. Understandable now? 2012/4/26 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale: 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right this case is used in Germany in several regions e.g. http://www.staufreieshessen2015.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMWVL_15/Staufrei_Internet/med/c6f/c6f50ce6-66e7-3e21-79cd-aae2389e4818,---- and this leads very fast to the question: Shall this lane - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane The article is ambiguous here. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 26 April 2012 10:30, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. I suppose I've got a few major objections, and a few minor *Major problem:* You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. The example given for the 'narrow' road, which you advise should be tagged as lanes=2 looks more like lanes=1 especially as there is a need for a passing place. *Major Problem:* The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The 'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes are present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present. But surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage people not to add the data. highway=path is considered not to be for motor vehicles, but the assumption is correct if the path has been tagged accessible to a type of vehicle. Assumptions for mortorway/trunk need to be clarified because these highways are commonly considered to consist of two carriageways? and mapping guidance has always stated the the carriageways should be mapped as two separate way? I'd simply remove the 4 or more and leave that box blank. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and forget about them. They are too subjective. What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.899274,12.464333spn=0.008497,0.021136t=hz=16layer=ccbll=41.899391,12.464289panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXgcbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.876836,12.481943spn=0.000378,0.00066t=hz=21 if we start entering fractional lanes counts, mapping will get more complicated, with no real benefit: Every street has an unambiguous width, which is a more helpful information to determine how many vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, it will always remain unclear which width is the street. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26.04.2012 um 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. Actually I thought it was solved by specifying the width. And I can't cleanse it from the database by - for the first time as far as I can see - mention lanes=1.5 in the wiki. Major Problem: The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The 'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes are present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present. But surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage people not to add the data. In the remarks I wrote ... is usually not tagged..., which afaik is the truth. I also had the impression, that we don't want the lanes-tag on every residential road. If this is not the case I could remove the none from the residential-road-example and rephrase the assumptions. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and forget about them. They are too subjective. What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.899274,12.464333spn=0.008497,0.021136t=hz=16layer=ccbll=41.899391,12.464289panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXgcbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=enll=41.876836,12.481943spn=0.000378,0.00066t=hz=21 if we start entering fractional lanes counts, mapping will get more complicated, with no real benefit: Every street has an unambiguous width, which is a more helpful information to determine how many vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, it will always remain unclear which width is the street. cheers, Martin For that matter, even if the number of lanes remains constant, the actual width of the street, and of the individual lanes, may vary from point to point. Routing software that takes into account road width needs to retrieve and check the width for the entire route. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/23 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: If one does not consider parked cars _at all_, the first example of my previous post (at the end) with a 9 meter wide carriageway and no markings would have to be lanes=3 Of course not. It would be lanes=2. The width isn't decisive for the lane count, but markings or usage. I doubt, that anyone would consider this to be a road with three lanes. , but it's not a three lane road. Likewise, this oneway street (5.9-6.0 meters wide) with cars always on one side would have to be lanes=2, which seems wrong, don't you think? Same argument as before. In my opinion, parked cars should not be considered. Keep it simple! The tag lanes should give you the number of lanes. The tag width gives you the width. And if cars usually park on the road, we should use a tag - maybe parking:lanes or similar - for that one. We already do use parking:lane:right/both/left=*, a lot. :) Perfect :-) Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more or less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best selling cars in the UK (and I assume Europe) we have to assume car widths (with mirrors) are now just over 2m, which I'd round up to 2.1m. -1, fortunately this isn't true and cars are usually not larger then 1.8 metres, actually the best selling cars are usually smaller than that. E.g. have a look here (I didn't check it extensively, but I guess it is true): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Britain Anyways, I think researching the average car width shouldn't be required for mapping lanes. assumed to be 1.8m. I think it's good advice if you add on 0.2m for each car lane. -1, doubt it. Realising this is a far more complex issue that I first thought. Personally I don't I'll be adding widths. that's a pity, because this seems to be the only (or at least the easiest) way to have objective data on this, as nobody will know what you did assume for the average car width when you tagged lanes=1.78 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 23. April 2012 13:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com : Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com : But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more or less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best selling cars in the UK (and I assume Europe) we have to assume car widths (with mirrors) are now just over 2m, which I'd round up to 2.1m. -1, fortunately this isn't true and cars are usually not larger then 1.8 metres, actually the best selling cars are usually smaller than that. E.g. have a look here (I didn't check it extensively, but I guess it is true): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Britain Well, I think quite a number of those are more than 2 m wide. I also didn't check extensively, but I am quite sure that the widths given in Wikipedia are usually *without* mirrors. Not to long ago there has been some amount of news coverage in Germany about cars being wider than 2 m including mirrors and for this reason not being allowed on the fast lane in many highway construction zones. A famous example is the current Golf with approx. 2.05 m. So I would also assume car widths above 2 m as a rule of thumb. Michael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, martinq wrote: I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. I am not sure we should base the lanes tag value on typical car width. IMO the lanes tag should *not* be another kind of estimate for the width. However, trying to decouple lanes fully from width also decouples you from reality where they are in some kind of relation (albeit somewhat loose one here and there). A further problem is the definition: For example the euro track has a maximum allowed width of 2.55m without mirrors (refrigerated ones even 2.60m). This would be as fair as basis as a average car in UK or a UK guide. And in US or India we may find another situation again. ...There's one law detail here somewhat interesting in this context. It's illegal to park/stop here when there's yellow don't-cross-line and you'd block the available room so so that less than 3m remains available (IMHO it's not far that this 3m width could be thought to be kind of minimum lane width which is not, at least directly, bound to anything in the realms of typical/maximum allowed width). In residential areas/streets I omit lanes if they are not marked. Parking allowance and parking cars on the street/carriageway make the situation very complicated. Look here: http://bit.ly/I2hna7 While the carriageway in this example is more than 6m wide and allows two trucks to pass, you also see parking cars in this street (I don't know the German law, but they might be allowed to do that). What would you do now? And if the parking allowance is time limited? For me lanes is simply not applicable here. -- I would tag the parking information with parking:lane, width, but not lanes. But then it would well be possible to have even the lanes=2 marked for that street (at least around here), so essentially one of the marked lanes would be quite much blocked by the legal parking (it would be illegal to park on both sides so close to each other that the others could not get through anymore). -- so I don't see how it would be any less problem by not applying lanes at all if parking is allowed but on the same time marking lanes only if marked to the street because both would be true!?! In general I agree with you here though that the parking makes it much more complicated. After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. -1 1.5 makes no sense. If we can agree that a lane is a strip, which is wide enough for one moving line of motor vehicles other than motor cycles (from the Vienna Convention of Road Signs, used as basis for local law in many countries all over the world) -- then either one line of vehicles can move -- or two. wide enough, isn't that about the same as has enough width? -- For me this lanes=1.5 is a clear indication for an attempt to turn the lanes tag into a rough width-estimate. I think the width tag is the better tag for width-estimates. No, I don't agree it's a width estimate. ...I think it's more an attempt to put something more meaningful to the lanes tag than 1 or 2. That is, clearly such street is not plain lanes=1 because it's possible to traffic both directions at the same time, nor is it lanes=2 in the sense that you cannot just pass incoming car without interference like you could on a real lanes=2 road (or at least most people wouldn't, it's legal though up to maxspeed like it would be to pass a traffic_calming=choker too but usually people won't try that :-)). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On April 23rd 2012 13:05 many people wrote something about car width . The only reason we started discussing about the width of vehicles was a recommendation for narrow roads with two lanes to replace the lanes=1.5: if someone can not or does not want to measure the width of the road, we need some recommend value for est_width. If we agree on, that most cars have a width of something around 2 meters, a good value for the estimated(!) width of a road with two lanes, which is so narrow, that vehicles most slow down to pass each other is about 4 meters - therefore the recommendation to use est_width=4. Is everyone fine with that? I would also like to get some more opinions on either 1) est_width or 2) width and source:width=estimated should be used. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 23. April 2012 13:45 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: the road, we need some recommend value for est_width. If we agree on, that most cars have a width of something around 2 meters, a good value for the estimated(!) width of a road with two lanes, which is so narrow, that vehicles most slow down to pass each other is about 4 meters - therefore the recommendation to use est_width=4. Is everyone fine with that? +1 I would also like to get some more opinions on either 1) est_width or 2) width and source:width=estimated should be used. I prefer the second form. You will never have widths with cm precision, so they will always be somehow estimates, because even if you measure them precisely they won't probably be exactly the same 10 or 100 meters away from this spot. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote: It may be harder to estimate a width in meters instead of a lanes count, but I think it's possible within +/- 1m, especially for narrow ways. (I personally only use it with either rather narrow or rather wide ways out of the norm.) Okay. Then we tag the objective width instead of imprecise amount of lanes ! But one question : the doc ([1]) does not specify what is counted in the width: shoulders, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, parking lanes, psv lanes ? And what is width if the way contains a cycleway=track ? And since almost nobody reads the doc, the tag width will have as much (mis)interpretations as the tag lanes does... [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer the second form. You will never have widths with cm precision, so they will always be somehow estimates, because even if you measure them precisely they won't probably be exactly the same 10 or 100 meters away from this spot. Finally. Someone else who think that width and est_width are the same if it's tagging a way... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 23 April 2012 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com : I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more or less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best selling cars in the UK (and I assume Europe) we have to assume car widths (with mirrors) are now just over 2m, which I'd round up to 2.1m. -1, fortunately this isn't true and cars are usually not larger then 1.8 metres, actually the best selling cars are usually smaller than that. E.g. have a look here (I didn't check it extensively, but I guess it is true): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Britain What I said about car widths is true. A quick search confirms the current models of the 'Ford Focus', 'Volkswagon Golf' and ' Vauxhall Astra' are all wider than 2m (common width for these type of family cars appears to be 2.010m). Note that I said with mirrors. The wing mirrors can be folded back to make the cars narrower, but you don't have your wing mirrors folded back when driving. Anyways, I think researching the average car width shouldn't be required for mapping lanes. That's a fair point. But my response about car widths was meant to be linked to the solution Martin Vonwald is suggesting for narrow 2 lanes roads currently being tagged as lane=1.5 (a tag not documented but being used for roads that two cars can pass at a crawl, and clearly important info) Martin implied the wiki should suggest not using the lanes=1.5 but instead people should use lane=2; width=4 (or est_width=4) What I was trying to point out, and maybe should have made clearer, is that I thought suggestion was acceptable in principle, but that width=4 was wrong. Common cars now have widths greater than 2m, I felt Martins suggested advice for dealing with lanes=1.5 should be lanes=2, width=4.3 Problem with that, and why I am said this is far more complex than I first thought, is some people responding to lanes=1.5 by saying 'computers' only like whole numbers. This suggests width=4.3 would need to be rounded to either width=4 or width=5 neither of which would help with solving the lanes=1.5 problem, because 4m is to narrow for two 2.010m cars, and 5m arguably doesn't require you to significantly slow down. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos and widths? There are a few things to this, that haven't yet been mentioned. I've been writing this as the discussion has progressed, so this got a bit long, but I tried to rearrange it to a comprehensible presentation of the issues. All this discussion is taking place, because there are roads where lanes=2 would be wrong part of the time, or for some motorized road users, and lanes=1 would be wrong on that same road at some other times. IMO we should not omit the lanes tag altogether on these roads, when the between 1 and 2 tells us something significant of the attainable speeds and the layout of that road. Even if the actual width is measured and entered. First: I give you two clear examples why we must not limit the lanes tag to roads with a painted line: Urban road 9 meters wide (measured from aerial images), parked cars on one side (always), no markings. Definitively lanes=2 - that's 3,5 meter wide lanes, enough for the bus that runs here. http://g.co/maps/9pvjn Rural road less than 5.7 meters(*), probably 5.5m. No markings. Low traffic, passenger car and a hgv can pass even if most drivers slow down a bit because they have to drive so close to the edge. Has passing places for the easier driving in the rare case of oncoming hgv's, even if they can fit side by side with only few cm margin. Passing places are also in place for winter time, when the snowplowed road edge has too much snow for driving safely in a straight line, when a bus and a passenger car need to fit side by side. In winter two passenger cars would most of the time disregard the passing places. I'd still say lanes=2: http://g.co/maps/c7p3h *) Here the road marking rules state that generally no center line markings are used on roads less than 5.7 meters wide; even that is 2.8 meters per lane, i.e. enough for the widest road legal hgv's to pass. I'd believe the point being, that a center line on a road narrower than that would make it impossible for the hgv to stay within the lane it is supposed be driving in. About car widths: typical European car widths are 1.80 meters, give or take 5 cm. That does not include mirrors. That is why a row of parked cars takes up 2 meters from the road width. (Also, not everybody can park every time less than 5 cm from the road edge.) The widths have grown some 20 cm between the 1970's and present day. Likewise, the 2.55/2.60 meters for trucks and buses does not include mirrors. Second point: often we would, I believe, assume that a road tagged as having two lanes generally always allows unimpeded traffic flow in both directions. Where it's 4.2-4.4 meters wide, that holds for passenger cars. A case I often see, especially in urban areas built between 1920 and 1960, are residential roads that are 5.5 to 6 meters wide without a center line, but allow parking on one side of the road carriageway - and they're generally often full of parked cars. It's not a parking lane, but part of the road reserved for traffic; when there are no parked cars, even hgv's could pass each other with care. On 5.5 meters wide roads, many passenger car drivers will wait at a random free space between the parked cars, but on a 6 m wide road people will just slow to a crawl (or halt) when passing oncoming cars. The wider one could be lanes=2, but the narrower one hardly. See below for streetview examples, the last two example links. Third point: were we to estimate widths visually (not all areas have good enough aerial imagery), there would be lots of relative errors between nearby roads: IMO it's bad if such measures are recorded that claim that a road is narrower than the next, when it's the other way round - especially when the claimed-to-be narrower road might have two clear lanes, whereas the lane count isn't that unambigous on the other road. With lanes=1.5 we have a rough scale, but one that's correct relative to nearby roads with definitively 1 or 2 lanes. Examples, both clear cases and ones that are to date without a lanes tag, or with lanes=1.5. None of the examples below are oneway roads. Only now did I measure the width from Bing aerials. One can take the phrase Generally always below to mean that if you were to go there on 10 different days, on 8 or 9 days the situation would be as depicted. Clear cases of lanes=2: Rural road 7.5 meters wide (+shoulders), marked lanes, lots of margin within the lanes for the widest of vehicles. http://g.co/maps/zjjx2 Rural road about 6.5 to 7 meters, marked lanes, even a hgv still has lots of margin within their own lane. lanes=2
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/23 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Problem with that, and why I am said this is far more complex than I first thought, is some people responding to lanes=1.5 by saying 'computers' only like whole numbers. This suggests width=4.3 would need to be rounded to either width=4 or width=5 neither of which would help with solving the lanes=1.5 problem, because 4m is to narrow for two 2.010m cars, and 5m arguably doesn't require you to significantly slow down. 1) The whole numbers referred to the lanes tag. Width of course can have fractional digits. 2) The width=4 should be a recommendation if the width - for whatever reason - is not measured exactly. The recommend width should have two properties: a) easy to remember, and b) for any data consumer it should be clear, that this is narrow. Because of a) I would take 4 and not 4.3 and because of b) we can not take 5. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward= Would this make sense? Lanes=3 Lanes:forward=2 Lanes:backward=2 No, it wouldn't. This was one of the reasons, why I suggested an additional suffix both-ways in the original version of the lanes proposal (see [1]). With this suffix you would tag this as follow: lanes=3 lanes:forward=1 lanes:backward=1 lanes:both_ways=1 What you are now missing is the information, what exactly can be done on the both_ways-lane: is it a passing, median or reversible lane? Originally I suggested an additional tag reversible for this. But this was ambiguous so when I wrote a proposal for this I changed the tag to two_way_lane (see [2]). Then you could either use the lanes suffix or the both_ways suffix to specify the kind of lane. Using the both_ways suffix we would add the following to the aforementioned tags: two_way_lane:both_ways=passing Now it is defined, that the lane in the middle is a passing lane. But there are two reasons, why I think, that two_way_lane is not a good solution: 1) two_way_lane:both_ways is awful and two_way_lane makes only sense with both_ways, but not with forward or backward. 2) A more generic tag could be better readable and at the same time provide more information with amore compact style. So I am thinking of renaming two_way_lane to lane_kind. This tag then should specify the kind of lane, e.g. passing, reversible, median but also directional for normal lanes, and some more. If we have a road with four lanes and two of them are reversibles, we would tag them as follows: lanes=4 lanes:forward=1 lanes:backward=1 lanes:both_ways=2 lanes_kind:both_ways=reversible We would need the tags with the lanes suffix then only in such cases, where we really need the layout of the lanes, e.g. on junctions. In this context the values of lane_kind for normal lanes then would be helpful. But this all is off-topic right now: for the lanes article I will add a statement, that this issue is currently unresolved. Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension/ProposalPreVoting#Center.2Fmedian_turn_lanes [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/two_way_lane ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost never the same width throughout. Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the width exactly we would recommend: lanes=2 width=4 source:width=estimated or lanes=2 est_width=4 Or any better estimation of the width. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 22 April 2012 08:41, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the width exactly we would recommend: lanes=2 width=4 source:width=estimated or lanes=2 est_width=4 I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more or less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best selling cars in the UK (and I assume Europe) we have to assume car widths (with mirrors) are now just over 2m, which I'd round up to 2.1m. Therefore I believe a road with a width of 4m should be mapped as a single lane. I'd argue you'd need at least 4.3m before a road could now be considered narrow, or car only, 2 lanes. Though I'd think a road 4.3m wide would fall under the 'lanes=1.5' idea Following image was taken from a uk guidance document, although as I've said above it appears to rely on the now incorrect idea that car widths can be assumed to be 1.8m. I think it's good advice if you add on 0.2m for each car lane. http://bit.ly/IkVv9B Realising this is a far more complex issue that I first thought. Personally I don't I'll be adding widths. I'll simply add the lanes based on what seems obvious to me. After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. I am not sure we should base the lanes tag value on typical car width. IMO the lanes tag should *not* be another kind of estimate for the width. A further problem is the definition: For example the euro track has a maximum allowed width of 2.55m without mirrors (refrigerated ones even 2.60m). This would be as fair as basis as a average car in UK or a UK guide. And in US or India we may find another situation again. My opinion: If the width of the road can be estimated and no lanes are marked: We should tag the width (of the carriageway(*)) only (or est_width or width+source:width) and no lanes tag. (*) Sadly the width itself is pretty ambiguous tag at the moment (e.g. is it the width of the complete street or just the carriageway, etc.). But this is a topic for its own. When you look at following example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bangalore_India_traffic.jpg then I conclude: If there are no marked lanes, it lanes gets simply too subjective. My current practice: On non-residential areas (tertiary, etc.) I typically tag lanes=2 only if the road allows *two* trucks (that don't require police escort because they are wider than allowed, means 2.6m) to pass. In my area this means 5.2m. In residential areas/streets I omit lanes if they are not marked. Parking allowance and parking cars on the street/carriageway make the situation very complicated. Look here: http://bit.ly/I2hna7 While the carriageway in this example is more than 6m wide and allows two trucks to pass, you also see parking cars in this street (I don't know the German law, but they might be allowed to do that). What would you do now? And if the parking allowance is time limited? For me lanes is simply not applicable here. -- I would tag the parking information with parking:lane, width, but not lanes. What I also propose: If lanes are marked, but narrow for trucks (e.g. just 2m each), I would tag them width:lanes=2.0|2.0 now. If there is a dedicated maximum width road sign -- maxwidth. Though I'd think a road 4.3m wide would fall under the 'lanes=1.5' idea [...] After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. -1 1.5 makes no sense. If we can agree that a lane is a strip, which is wide enough for one moving line of motor vehicles other than motor cycles (from the Vienna Convention of Road Signs, used as basis for local law in many countries all over the world) -- then either one line of vehicles can move -- or two. -- For me this lanes=1.5 is a clear indication for an attempt to turn the lanes tag into a rough width-estimate. I think the width tag is the better tag for width-estimates. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. I agree. I think lanes=* should record the total number of marked lanes (i.e. road markings must be present to indicate the lanes). lanes=1.5 is subjective, and anything subjective should be avoided. Instead, record width=* (estimated or actual) then the onus of interpretation falls on the user, not the mapper. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. I agree. I think lanes=* should record the total number of marked lanes (i.e. road markings must be present to indicate the lanes). lanes=1.5 is subjective, and anything subjective should be avoided. Instead, record width=* (estimated or actual) then the onus of interpretation falls on the user, not the mapper. Best wishes, Andrew I agree that having the actual width helps. I once encountered a country road that had a center line painted, so that, officially, it was two lanes wide. Unfortunately, the total road width was only about three meters, so only bicycles or motorcycles would have been able to use it in both directions simultaneously. For anything four-wheeled, it was only one lane wide. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 20.04.2012 um 16:58 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: On 20 April 2012 14:35, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Which prompts another question, do we have a tag for a 'passing place'? There is a photo of one on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-track_road Tag info shows it does highway=passing_place does get used http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=highway%3Dpassing And there is a page on the wiki for it. Thanks for that. I would add a recommendation not to count such places for the lanes-count, but instead use the passing-tag. I will add a link to its article. And here's another question. A twoway single lane highway implies that if you meet a vehicle coming in the other direction the road is blocked. Hence the the common of existence, at least in the UK, of 'Passing Places' mentioned by Philip. A twoway two lane highway implies that common road vehicles can drive down the road each within their own lane? But there is a third situation that in my area is arguably more common than implied single lane status, and that is a road which is wide enough for cars to pass each other at at crawl, but which would be blocked if a large vehicle meets another vehicle. This I assume is impotant information, especially for routing, because these are roads a car owner would wish to avoid if there is an alternative 'true' 2 lane road, and which a lorry or van should avoid unless they must use the road. A while back I went through a period of trying to add lanes, speed limits, and lighting info. This was prompted by the excellent tools produced by ITO map eg www.itoworld.com/map/179 While trying to sort through the confusing speed limit laws in my country, I stumbled across a document advising that roads where two cars could pass slowly or with care, but wider vehciles could not, the road should be considered to consist of 1.5 lanes. Didn't bother to save the document at the time and search engines can't track it down. Does the idea of lanes=1.5 seem acceptable for roads where cars can pass slowly, but wider vehicles will block the road. There is an obvious problem that the decision to label a road as lanes=1.5 is subjective. In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for this situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, but not too often. What should we do? I would recommend not to use it and advise to specify a width (which is also objective rather than subjective as 1.5 is). Opinions? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Ronnie Soak wrote: In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for this situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, but not too often. What should we do? I would recommend not to use it and advise to specify a width (which is also objective rather than subjective as 1.5 is). +1 The width-tag is widely used, is more general and part of the standard set of fields for many highway-categories in JOSM and Potlatch. It may be harder to estimate a width in meters instead of a lanes count, but I think it's possible within +/- 1m, especially for narrow ways. This difficulty is very true and it disallows collecting more than few of them at a time since you'd have to remember/note those estimates until you have a computer with which you can put that into the db. (I personally only use it with either rather narrow or rather wide ways out of the norm.) The lanes tag is used with integral numbers, most tools won't recognize fractions. And even if they do, it's still highly subjective if it's lanes=1 or lanes=1.5 or lanes=2 if there are no road markings. (If you have to slow down to pass depends on your type of car, the road (and weather/sight) conditions and your bravery/insanity.) I'm not really convinced by the subjectivity fear in this case. It's always quite clear when the road is clearly wider than a single lane (and that is provable too in many cases as you are able to spot few cars passing by ;-)). And on the other end, it is not extremely hard to estimate that it would be rather challenging to pass an incoming car without slowing down. ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos and widths? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos and widths? !?! ...No! Unfortunately this was exactly what I oppose! Because: It actually requires a) knowing/estimating and b) storing the width number somewhere until you can put that to the particular osm way. Both a) and b) make it significantly harder to collect compared with something as simple as lanes=1.5 which requires only 1-bit of storage in your memory. I don't mind if we _eventually_ have width too but I think there needs to be some intermediate step in between those to balance ease of collecting and time-consuming accuracy, which is probably the reason we have lanes=1.5 tags in the db in the first place. ...It highlights there's a clear need for this kind of tradeoff (but no assigned tag for it exists other than reusing lanes= but that part could be IMHO easily fixed but that won't happen as long as width is offered as sole alternative :-(). -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward= Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 21.04.2012 um 14:23 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos and widths? !?! ...No! Unfortunately this was exactly what I oppose! Sorry, I misunderstood you there. Let us start again: can we at least agree, that it is the correct solution to use width=xxx, but it is difficult to obtain a correct value? If so, how about recommending to use lanes=2 and est_width=4? Or maybe width=4 and source:width=estimated, because application support for est_width is even worse than for width? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 15:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 21 Apr 2012 um 13:23 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: However OSM does not allow anything other than tagging as 3 lanes, so the above is probably irrelevant to OSM You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward= Would this make sense? Lanes=3 Lanes:forward=2 Lanes:backward=2 Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 14:08 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: ...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose. I would recommend lanes=2 and width=xxx. Maybe give some examples for the widths of some common, narrow roads? Can someone provide photos and widths? The distinction used by OS is width is more than 4m or less than 4m. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 20:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: Am 21.04.2012 um 19:11 schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: The distinction used by OS is width is more than 4m or less than 4m. And what happens if width IS 4m? The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost never the same width throughout. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
If it's 4m, you will be able to see continuous wear on the verge where people drive off the edge of the tarmac. At 4m there will only be wear for occasional large vehicles (tractor tracks, typically). At 6m there's usually a centre line. I'd quite like some tags for these subtleties, but I wouldn't use the lanes tag (so not lanes=1.5) A few standard widths might not come amiss: maybe 3, 3.6, 4.2, 6? Some of you may remember that the OS criteria used to be 14ft (4.2m). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/19 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are separately mapped (which is a better solution for routing, given their controlled access). I will think about a phrase, that will cover all those lanes. For english and russian: suggestions from native speakers are welcome! * Turn lanes SHOULD be included (see [2] and [5]). * The lane count should change, as soon as a) new lane has reached its full width or b) a lane starts to disappear (usually a merge with another lane) (also [5]). Technically, yes, but it doesn't seem practical in developed areas in the US, which typically change lane configurations at every major intersection and then change back again. Yes - and no. That's called micromapping. I fully agree with you, that under normal circumstances it should not be necessary. But for example on motorways I actually tag this way, especially since turning lanes can be properly mapped. This way routers could precisely determine e.g. the start and end of lanes exiting the motorway and give very accurate instructions. As there are no obvious reasons to not include turning lanes, we should not exclude them. But I think about adding a statement, that usually only on major roads or very complex junctions those lanes are actually mapped. Can we agree on this? - Two-way roads with a specified lane count, but without a specified lanes:forward OR lanes:backward and a lane count, that is divisible by two, are assumed to have half of the lanes in each direction, e.g. lanes=4 means two lanes in each direction if not specified otherwise. I will add a recommendation for this situation, to add explicit values. If an odd number, assume a center turn lane (e.g. lanes=5 means 2 forward, 2 backward, 1 center). This is simply not working that way. If we would use that assumption, we would assume a lot of center turn lanes in Austria. I don't know 1 (in words: one) of them. Completely omitting those default assumptions might also not be a good idea, because in my opinion it should not be necessary to tag the lanes count on e.g. normal residential roads. How about a table for the most common types of roads? Example: residential is assumed to have one lane if one-way, two otherwise. For motorways and trunks I would not add any assumptions, because they simply differ too much. Can we agree on that? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
There is a discussion about PSV lanes, but what about emergency lanes. Nobody is allowed to use it, with the exception of people who have to stop for a car problem, or by emergency vehicles when there is a traffic jam on the other lanes (at least, that's the case in Belgium). This is not one place where you can drive to and park your car to change a wheel or so, it's a lane along a huge part of the way. As they are not open (under normal circumstances) for traffic I would use the same arguments with them as for parking lanes and therefore not include them. Do we agree on this? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote: But I think about adding a statement, that usually only on major roads or very complex junctions those lanes are actually mapped. Can we agree on this? +1 Urban roads are going to be very messy if every little centre turning lane gets tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 12:33 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: If an odd number, assume a center turn lane (e.g. lanes=5 means 2 forward, 2 backward, 1 center). You cannot assume that, many 3 lane roads have a 'chicken' lane. Where the centre lane is used for overtaking by traffic in either direction. The presence of a solid and broken line together indicating that you should give priority to traffic overtaking but travelling in the opposite direction. But allows you to overtake otherwise. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 09:09 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: For motorways and trunks I would not add any assumptions, because they simply differ too much. Can we agree on that? +1 Very much agree with you there. Trunks in particular can vary enormously, from practically motorway standard roads to having to give way to traffic coming in the opposite direction because they are not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. When I was a child, back in the 1960s I can remember trunk roads, in Scotland, that were single lane with passing places, although I don't think they exist anymore, but am prepared to be proven wrong. Which prompts another question, do we have a tag for a 'passing place'? There is a photo of one on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-track_road Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 20 April 2012 14:35, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Which prompts another question, do we have a tag for a 'passing place'? There is a photo of one on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-track_road Tag info shows it does highway=passing_place does get used http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=highway%3Dpassing And there is a page on the wiki for it. And here's another question. A twoway single lane highway implies that if you meet a vehicle coming in the other direction the road is blocked. Hence the the common of existence, at least in the UK, of 'Passing Places' mentioned by Philip. A twoway two lane highway implies that common road vehicles can drive down the road each within their own lane? But there is a third situation that in my area is arguably more common than implied single lane status, and that is a road which is wide enough for cars to pass each other at at crawl, but which would be blocked if a large vehicle meets another vehicle. This I assume is impotant information, especially for routing, because these are roads a car owner would wish to avoid if there is an alternative 'true' 2 lane road, and which a lorry or van should avoid unless they must use the road. A while back I went through a period of trying to add lanes, speed limits, and lighting info. This was prompted by the excellent tools produced by ITO map eg www.itoworld.com/map/179 While trying to sort through the confusing speed limit laws in my country, I stumbled across a document advising that roads where two cars could pass slowly or with care, but wider vehciles could not, the road should be considered to consist of 1.5 lanes. Didn't bother to save the document at the time and search engines can't track it down. Does the idea of lanes=1.5 seem acceptable for roads where cars can pass slowly, but wider vehicles will block the road. There is an obvious problem that the decision to label a road as lanes=1.5 is subjective. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes... * Parking lanes/spaces should NOT be included (see [4]). What about stop lanes for bus stations ? (usually a short distance extra lane used for loading/unloading passagers) ? * Turn lanes SHOULD be included (see [2] and [5]). Not sure if it is a good idea. * The lane count should change, as soon as a) new lane has reached its full width or b) a lane starts to disappear (usually a merge with another lane) (also [5]). And what about the space between e.g. lanes=2 and lanes=3 ? - A one-way road has one lane excepted for motorways and trunk ? - Two-way roads have two lanes, one in each direction also for highway=track/service ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes... Thanks - I won't. * Parking lanes/spaces should NOT be included (see [4]). What about stop lanes for bus stations ? (usually a short distance extra lane used for loading/unloading passagers) ? My feeling tells me, not to count them. They are in my opinion not really traffic lanes, as they are intended only for stopping (maybe similar to parking lanes). * Turn lanes SHOULD be included (see [2] and [5]). Not sure if it is a good idea. I can't see any reason, why they should be included. There were good reasons in the linked discussion to add them. * The lane count should change, as soon as a) new lane has reached its full width or b) a lane starts to disappear (usually a merge with another lane) (also [5]). And what about the space between e.g. lanes=2 and lanes=3 ? I would suggest to continue with the previous lane count, until a new lane count is valid. Values like lanes=2.5 are not that intuitive, renderers could approximate the layout well enough and routers don't really care about half lanes, as they couldn't use them anyway. - A one-way road has one lane excepted for motorways and trunk ? - Two-way roads have two lanes, one in each direction also for highway=track/service ? After some additional thinking I notice that those assumptions are a bad idea: they would be too much exceptions. This would mean, that the assumptions currently present on the german page should be removed. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 19/04/12 13:58, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes... How does this work if the psv-lane is also allowed for bicycles and taxis ? fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 19/04/12 14:42, Martin Vonwald wrote: Don't forget other reserved lanes like taxi lanes... How does this work if the psv-lane is also allowed for bicycles and taxis ? It is wide enough, therefore it will be counted. But how to map it ? bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ? cu ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fly But how to map it ? bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ? Check this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_lanes_and_bus.2Ftaxi_lanes But the thread is about the tag lanes=*, not sub-tags like this one. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fly But how to map it ? bicycle:lanes:forward:psv=yes ? As Pieren already wrote: this is beyond the scope of the lanes tag. But as you already asked: if you want to tag the mere presence of a cycle lane, use cycleway=lane and similar tags. If you want to tag the exact layout of the lanes use the :lanes extension of the keys (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes). In short: if you have a road with three lanes, on the leftmost bicycles are forbidden, on the middle they are allowed and the rightmost is a designated lane, you would tag this is bicycle:lanes=no|yes|designated . Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
At 2012-04-19 04:38, Martin Vonwald wrote: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are separately mapped (which is a better solution for routing, given their controlled access). * Turn lanes SHOULD be included (see [2] and [5]). * The lane count should change, as soon as a) new lane has reached its full width or b) a lane starts to disappear (usually a merge with another lane) (also [5]). Technically, yes, but it doesn't seem practical in developed areas in the US, which typically change lane configurations at every major intersection and then change back again. A typical secondary artery might be 2 lanes in each direction with a raised center island, expanding to 2 lanes in one direction and, in the other direction, a left-turn pocket (in place of the center island), 2 straight-ahead lanes, and a right-turn pocket (in place of some land or sidewalk on the right side). While these additional lanes can be added individually or the way broken to tag them, I just don't see people doing this. It seems like routers could just as easily assume these types of configuration between various road classes, unless told otherwise. I would tag such a road as lanes=4 (lanes=5 if the center island is, instead, a center turn lane). - Two-way roads with a specified lane count, but without a specified lanes:forward OR lanes:backward and a lane count, that is divisible by two, are assumed to have half of the lanes in each direction, e.g. lanes=4 means two lanes in each direction if not specified otherwise. I will add a recommendation for this situation, to add explicit values. If an odd number, assume a center turn lane (e.g. lanes=5 means 2 forward, 2 backward, 1 center). +1 to the rest. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
In the UK emergency lanes are called shoulders. Tags for them have been suggested in the past: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder Nick. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com wrote: There is a discussion about PSV lanes, but what about emergency lanes. Nobody is allowed to use it, with the exception of people who have to stop for a car problem, or by emergency vehicles when there is a traffic jam on the other lanes (at least, that's the case in Belgium). This is not one place where you can drive to and park your car to change a wheel or so, it's a lane along a huge part of the way. I think this should be discussed together with the other types of lanes, but I won't join further discussion here. Cheers, Sander ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
