It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than drawing a parallel way? On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to incorrectly > map them as separate service roads. > If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, not a > separate roadway. > And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple of > tags > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it. >> >> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on the >> Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short and >> there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska. >> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a >> painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple, >> much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than >> the lanes technique. >> >> Thanks to all, >> >> Dave >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best >>> > solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts? Here >>> > is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a >>> > turnout on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, >>> > -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for clarity: >>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0 >>> >>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional >>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as >>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way): >>> >>> lanes=2 >>> >>> lanes=3 >>> lanes:forward=2 >>> lanes:backward=1 >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no >>> >>> lanes=4 >>> lanes:forward=2 >>> lanes:backward=2 >>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated >>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no >>> >>> lanes=3 >>> lanes:forward=1 >>> lanes:backward=2 >>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated >>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no >>> >>> lanes=2 >>> >>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea >>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense. >>> >>> Regards >>> Markus >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Swarthout >> Homer, Alaska >> Chiang Mai, Thailand >> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
