[Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it must include all turn lanes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&action=history ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it > must include all turn lanes: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&action=history Since 2008, the lane tag has been defined as the _physical_ number of lanes. In other words, it doesn't matter what these lanes are intended for: Whether they are, for example, reserved to high occupancy vehicles, or whether they are turn lanes. At least that's how I understand the wiki page. Alv's edits are consistent with this definition, so I do not agree that removing your addition to the page is a redefinition of the lanes tag. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it must > include all turn lanes: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&action=history I've had this discussion before 2007 and I've always said and heard that lanes is always all the lanes on the road. This very easy definition goes back to the first version of the key:lanes page. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&oldid=85670 So the current wikipage is wrong and too complex. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
2011/9/18 Erik Johansson : > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it must >> include all turn lanes: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&action=history > > I've had this discussion before 2007 and I've always said and heard > that lanes is always all the lanes on the road. This very easy > definition goes back to the first version of the key:lanes page. See: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&oldid=85670 +1, lanes from the very beginning were to indicate all lanes of the road. Opposed to this was the common practice, not to split an highway because of a short lane for turns (otherwise we would for example have had to split a motorway at every exit which I never saw in the actual data). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 8:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, lanes from the very beginning were to indicate all lanes of the road. Opposed to this was the common practice, not to split an highway because of a short lane for turns (otherwise we would for example have had to split a motorway at every exit which I never saw in the actual data). So it's down to the old prescriptive vs. descriptive debate then. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 8:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> +1, lanes from the very beginning were to indicate all lanes of the >> road. Opposed to this was the common practice, not to split an highway >> because of a short lane for turns (otherwise we would for example have >> had to split a motorway at every exit which I never saw in the actual >> data). > > So it's down to the old prescriptive vs. descriptive debate then. The current lanes tag works pretty well for me as a pedestrian, it tells me how many lanes there is on a road. I agree that it gives too little information to be useful for routers etc, but that's because the generic name. Please write something more descriptive to describe the problem and how you think it should be solved. These single sentence responses do not really help. Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
2011/9/18 Erik Johansson : > Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle > lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with. +1, maybe we should specify that lanes is about car-lanes (restricted lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with separate tags.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] lanes tag dispute
>lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with Bus lanes should be counted in the lanes for global consistency: some countries have bus lanes that are open to all outside rush hours, and/or motorists are allowed to use them for turning right even when they're 24/7. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 9:12 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: The current lanes tag works pretty well for me as a pedestrian, it tells me how many lanes there is on a road. This could be more usefully placed in the crossing node. Outside a crosswalk, it's much more useful to know if there's a shelter (raised median or paved and striped) in the middle of the road. Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 18/09/2011 14:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/9/18 Erik Johansson: Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with. +1, maybe we should specify that lanes is about car-lanes (restricted lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with separate tags.) I agree. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 9:12 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: The current lanes tag works pretty well for me as a pedestrian, it tells me how many lanes there is on a road. This could be more usefully placed in the crossing node. Outside a crosswalk, it's much more useful to know if there's a shelter (raised median or paved and striped) in the middle of the road. I agree it's more useful there, but please remember that jaywalking isn't an offence in many countries. Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways & tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM & its tagging process. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Dave F. wrote: > On 18/09/2011 14:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2011/9/18 Erik Johansson: >>> >>> Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle >>> lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with. >> >> +1, maybe we should specify that lanes is about car-lanes (restricted >> lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with >> separate tags.) > > I agree. Wha? Why shouldn't bus lanes or cycle lanes count? (Even if you do convince me they shouldn't, which so far no one has presented any argument for, shouldn't this be a different tag altogether? car_lanes=*?) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg > > I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways & > tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM & its tagging process. I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software, especially when combined with information about which lanes have which turn restrictions. Yes, it's a lot of work, and people routinely ignore it, but that doesn't make it wrong. The way I see it, ignoring short lane number changes is equivalent to ignoring short traffic dividers (e.g. http://g.co/maps/cqdmf). I wouldn't blame someone for ignoring it, but I wouldn't blame someone for including it either. Nathan, what is one supposed to do if *all* lanes are turning lanes (e.g. http://g.co/maps/4j2uh)? Do we tag it lanes=0? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 12:54 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways& tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM& its tagging process. I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software, especially when combined with information about which lanes have which turn restrictions. I think to do this properly you'd have to map every lane as a separate way. Yes, it's a lot of work, and people routinely ignore it, but that doesn't make it wrong. The way I see it, ignoring short lane number changes is equivalent to ignoring short traffic dividers (e.g. http://g.co/maps/cqdmf). I wouldn't blame someone for ignoring it, but I wouldn't blame someone for including it either. I see it as more like ignoring short breaks in traffic dividers (like when crossing a divided highway). Nathan, what is one supposed to do if *all* lanes are turning lanes (e.g. http://g.co/maps/4j2uh)? Do we tag it lanes=0? I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are before the turn lanes begin. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 12:54 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg >>> >>> I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways& >>> tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM& its tagging process. >> >> I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software, >> especially when combined with information about which lanes have which >> turn restrictions. > > I think to do this properly you'd have to map every lane as a separate way. Properly or perfectly? You can get a lot of information from just the number of lanes and the turn restrictions on each. Enough for a router to say "stay in one of the left two lanes". Yes, mapping every lane as a separate way would be even better, but let's go one step at a time. >> Yes, it's a lot of work, and people routinely ignore it, but that >> doesn't make it wrong. The way I see it, ignoring short lane number >> changes is equivalent to ignoring short traffic dividers (e.g. >> http://g.co/maps/cqdmf). I wouldn't blame someone for ignoring it, >> but I wouldn't blame someone for including it either. > > I see it as more like ignoring short breaks in traffic dividers (like when > crossing a divided highway). Intersections have their own set of problems. I'm referring here to changes in the number of lanes which are not located within an intersection. >> Nathan, what is one supposed to do if *all* lanes are turning lanes >> (e.g. http://g.co/maps/4j2uh)? Do we tag it lanes=0? > > I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are > before the turn lanes begin. And you think any other number of lanes would be *wrong*? I might lanes=2 here myself. But I'd recognize that, in doing so, my mapping was incomplete. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> On 9/18/2011 12:54 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 18/09/2011 16:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > Here's an example of what tagging every lane would lead to: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways& tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM& its tagging process. >>> >>> I agree. This data would be quite useful to routing software, >>> especially when combined with information about which lanes have which >>> turn restrictions. >> >> I think to do this properly you'd have to map every lane as a separate way. > > Properly or perfectly? You can get a lot of information from just the > number of lanes and the turn restrictions on each. Enough for a > router to say "stay in one of the left two lanes". > > Yes, mapping every lane as a separate way would be even better, but > let's go one step at a time. Actually, I take back that last sentence: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here? I don't think they are, or that they should. I think if I were going to do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and then as two ways after the theoretical gore point. I wouldn't use five ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are before the turn lanes begin. And you think any other number of lanes would be *wrong*? No. What I don't agree with is that lanes=2 is "missing data" or an "interim solution". It is simply another way of tagging. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Anthony wrote: Yes, mapping every lane as a separate way would be even better, but let's go one step at a time. Actually, I take back that last sentence: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here? I don't think they are, or that they should. I think if I were going to do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and then as two ways after the theoretical gore point. I wouldn't use five ways. It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an intersection but 2 before? And actually, even on a motorway, what if it's 4 lanes to a split of 2 and 3? The assumption is that the second lane from the left can be used to exit, but it's possible that only the leftmost lane is available, and a second lane begins on the ramp right at the gore. Or perhaps there's a short segment of 5 lanes before the split - how do you know which side the new lane forms on? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 1:12 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> I would use lanes=2 there, since that's how many through lanes there are >>> before the turn lanes begin. >> >> And you think any other number of lanes would be *wrong*? > > No. What I don't agree with is that lanes=2 is "missing data" or an "interim > solution". It is simply another way of tagging. I couldn't disagree with that sentiment more. Tagging the right number of lanes is clearly better than tagging the number of lanes that there used to be. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: >> http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg >> >> Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here? I >> don't think they are, or that they should. I think if I were going to >> do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and >> then as two ways after the theoretical gore point. I wouldn't use >> five ways. > > It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how > do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an > intersection but 2 before? Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't figure this out. If all lanes are parallel, you certainly don't need a way for every lane, though. But why is this important in the first place? > And actually, even on a motorway, what if it's 4 lanes to a split of 2 and > 3? The assumption is that the second lane from the left can be used to exit, > but it's possible that only the leftmost lane is available, and a second > lane begins on the ramp right at the gore. Or perhaps there's a short > segment of 5 lanes before the split - how do you know which side the new > lane forms on? This can be determined by the geometry of the ways, which are mapped at the center. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how >> do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an >> intersection but 2 before? > > Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, > then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't > figure this out. Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote: http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/reviews/tomtom-v8/v8_lane_assist_northwest2_speed_alert.jpg Do you think Garmin is mapping every lane as a separate way here? I don't think they are, or that they should. I think if I were going to do it, I'd map this as one way up to the theoretical gore point, and then as two ways after the theoretical gore point. I wouldn't use five ways. It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an intersection but 2 before? Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't figure this out. If all lanes are parallel, you certainly don't need a way for every lane, though. But why is this important in the first place? If you have two intersections in quick succession, and are turning at the second, you want to know which lane to be in at the first. That is, given that we want this sort of thing in the first place. And actually, even on a motorway, what if it's 4 lanes to a split of 2 and 3? The assumption is that the second lane from the left can be used to exit, but it's possible that only the leftmost lane is available, and a second lane begins on the ramp right at the gore. Or perhaps there's a short segment of 5 lanes before the split - how do you know which side the new lane forms on? This can be determined by the geometry of the ways, which are mapped at the center. No they're not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an intersection but 2 before? Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't figure this out. Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. Ways are not mapped this way. And even if they were, this would only work if there's a median. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface road, how do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after an intersection but 2 before? Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't figure this out. Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. Ways are not mapped this way. And even if they were, this would only work if there's a median. Not to mention that the line between the lanes doesn't always go straight through the intersection. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> This can be determined by the geometry of the ways, which are mapped >> at the center. > > No they're not. On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote: >> Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the >> left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the >> left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center >> of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. > > Ways are not mapped this way. Ways aren't mapped at the center? Where are they mapped? > And even if they were, this would only work if there's a median. What's a median got to do with it? On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Not to mention that the line between the lanes doesn't always go straight > through the intersection. Why does that matter? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 1:47 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: This can be determined by the geometry of the ways, which are mapped at the center. No they're not. On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote: Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. Ways are not mapped this way. Ways aren't mapped at the center? Where are they mapped? Somewhere between the two edge lines. Always using the exact center would require zigzagging whenever lanes are created or destroyed. And even if they were, this would only work if there's a median. What's a median got to do with it? When there's no median, the center depends on both directions. On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Not to mention that the line between the lanes doesn't always go straight through the intersection. Why does that matter? Because if the pre-intersection right lane is directly behind the post-intersection center lane, but an angled dashed line forces you into the post-intersection right lane, this cannot be determined without mapping this somehow. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 1:47 PM, Anthony wrote: >> Ways aren't mapped at the center? Where are they mapped? > > Somewhere between the two edge lines. Always using the exact center would > require zigzagging whenever lanes are created or destroyed. And mapping wherever and however you feel like it makes for less useful maps. >>> And even if they were, this would only work if there's a median. >> >> What's a median got to do with it? > > When there's no median, the center depends on both directions. If you don't know how many lanes are in each direction, then this is a problem. But you can state how many lanes are in each direction without mapping each lane as a separate way. >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> Not to mention that the line between the lanes doesn't always go straight >>> through the intersection. >> >> Why does that matter? > > Because if the pre-intersection right lane is directly behind the > post-intersection center lane, but an angled dashed line forces you into the > post-intersection right lane, this cannot be determined without mapping this > somehow. The way is supposed to follow the angled dashed lines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:00 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 1:47 PM, Anthony wrote: Ways aren't mapped at the center? Where are they mapped? [snip] The way is supposed to follow the angled dashed lines. I thought the way was "supposed" to be in the center between the edge lines. Which is it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 2:00 PM, Anthony wrote: >> The way is supposed to follow the angled dashed lines. > > I thought the way was "supposed" to be in the center between the edge lines. > Which is it? I never mentioned edge lines. There generally aren't any edge lines in an intersection, are there? The way is supposed to be in the center of the lanes. So if lanes=2, it would be on the dashed line. If lanes=3, it would be between the two dashed lines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: > >> It's simple on a motorway. But, for a simple example on a surface > road, how > >> do you know where the straight lanes go if there are 3 lanes after > an > >> intersection but 2 before? > > > > Depends on what data you have. If you have lane width information, > > then it's easy to figure this out. If you don't, then you can't > > figure this out. > > Nevermind. Yes you can. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the > left of the center of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the > left. If the center of the 3 lane road is to the right of the center > of the 2 lane road, then the lane was added on the right. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging There are a few cases here in Nashville, TN, USA, where the through lanes on one side of an intersection don't line up precisely with the through lanes on the other side. Generally, this is because of the later addition of a central turn lane. As a result, the intersection includes diagonal dotted markings showing where the through traffic is supposed to go. -- 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] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:07 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 2:00 PM, Anthony wrote: The way is supposed to follow the angled dashed lines. I thought the way was "supposed" to be in the center between the edge lines. Which is it? I never mentioned edge lines. There generally aren't any edge lines in an intersection, are there? The way is supposed to be in the center of the lanes. So if lanes=2, it would be on the dashed line. If lanes=3, it would be between the two dashed lines. And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? Then you split the way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase overall road capacity. Rather, they prevent it from dropping at busy intersections. As such, I do not split and tag ways where turning lanes are. I could see turning lanes being useful information though but lumping them in with the total lane count actually obscures information. I would rather see them tagged with lanes:turning:left=1 or something like that. That way you know exactly what is happening and routers could easily say "get in the left turning lane. Toby On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 2:07 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> On 9/18/2011 2:00 PM, Anthony wrote: The way is supposed to follow the angled dashed lines. >>> >>> I thought the way was "supposed" to be in the center between the edge >>> lines. >>> Which is it? >> >> I never mentioned edge lines. There generally aren't any edge lines >> in an intersection, are there? >> >> The way is supposed to be in the center of the lanes. So if lanes=2, >> it would be on the dashed line. If lanes=3, it would be between the >> two dashed lines. > > And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? > > ___ > 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] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes > along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows > routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase > overall road capacity. Rather, they prevent it from dropping at busy > intersections. As such, I do not split and tag ways where turning > lanes are. I could see turning lanes being useful information though > but lumping them in with the total lane count actually obscures > information. I would rather see them tagged with lanes:turning:left=1 > or something like that. That way you know exactly what is happening > and routers could easily say "get in the left turning lane. I'm fine with that if we can be consistent. But that means http://g.co/maps/4j2uh is tagged as lanes=0, lanes:turning:left=2, lanes:turning:right=2. It might be safer to to use lanes:through=X if you only want to include through lanes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:15 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? Then you split the way. That doesn't answer the question. Where do you put the node connecting the two ways? At the center of the 2 lane part or the 3 lane part? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Anthony wrote: > I'm fine with that if we can be consistent. But that means > http://g.co/maps/4j2uh is tagged as lanes=0, lanes:turning:left=2, > lanes:turning:right=2. Otherwise, lanes=4, lanes:turning:left=2, lanes:turning:right=2 is ambiguous. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 2:15 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? >> >> Then you split the way. > > That doesn't answer the question. Where do you put the node connecting the > two ways? At the center of the 2 lane part or the 3 lane part? There would be one at each. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:19 PM, Toby Murray wrote: My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase overall road capacity. Rather, they prevent it from dropping at busy intersections. As such, I do not split and tag ways where turning lanes are. I could see turning lanes being useful information though but lumping them in with the total lane count actually obscures information. I would rather see them tagged with lanes:turning:left=1 or something like that. That way you know exactly what is happening and routers could easily say "get in the left turning lane. This is pretty much my view too. The one application where I can see the total number of lanes being important is for a pedestrian crossing the road, and here it would probably work better as a tag on the crossing node. (And what really matters isn't the number of lanes but the width, AKA the length of the crossing.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/18/2011 2:15 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: And if lanes suddenly jumps from 2 to 3, then what? Then you split the way. That doesn't answer the question. Where do you put the node connecting the two ways? At the center of the 2 lane part or the 3 lane part? There would be one at each. Can you show me an example of a road that is mapped like this, with the way jumping left and right by 90 degrees each time a lane is added or dropped? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Can you show me an example of a road that is mapped like this, with the way > jumping left and right by 90 degrees each time a lane is added or dropped? I could, but I'd rather not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On 9/18/2011 2:35 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Can you show me an example of a road that is mapped like this, with the way jumping left and right by 90 degrees each time a lane is added or dropped? I could, but I'd rather not. Thanks for teaching me not to take you seriously. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 2:35 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >>> >>> Can you show me an example of a road that is mapped like this, with the >>> way >>> jumping left and right by 90 degrees each time a lane is added or >>> dropped? >> >> I could, but I'd rather not. > > Thanks for teaching me not to take you seriously. If you think we should just map however we feel like, and don't have to worry about being correct, then you shouldn't take anyone seriously. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
2011/9/18 Kytömaa Lauri : > >>lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with > > Bus lanes should be counted in the lanes for global consistency: > some countries have bus lanes that are open to all outside rush > hours, and/or motorists are allowed to use them for turning right > even when they're 24/7. for consistency it seems that the current way of tagging does not fit for the case described above. You will either be wrong in countries/situations where bus lanes are always restricted or you will be wrong for the situations where access is allowed some times. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Toby Murray wrote: >My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes >along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows >routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase >overall road capacity. The lanes tag is not about the capacity per se, but the number of lanes. Twisting the usage to record information only loosely related to the number of lanes on one short section invalidates the lanes tag throughout the whole osm database. Even if the throughput of a road is highly dependent on the lanes count, for proper analysis you'll need the total number of lanes and other traffic control measures tagged. As you noticed, the throughput is higher on a road with turning lanes, when compared to the same road without the turning lanes. Btw, I'd be happy to start identifying the number of turning lanes in concert with the total number. The only verifiable measure is the total number of lanes wide present on each section. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
Toby Murray schrieb: My take on lanes is that it should be the number of continuous lanes along a road. This impacts traffic flow and road capacity which allows routers to make more informed decisions. Turning lanes don't increase overall road capacity. That's always the problem in OSM: Is it meant as a "physical" tag or as an "intenionally" tag? I would appreciate it, if we can reserve such general tags like "lanes" for general physical description and describe intentionally tags with their precise intention. Like lanes=4 physically all lanes lanes:through=2 lane:turning_left=2 So I second Anthony. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] lanes tag dispute
>No. What I don't agree with is that lanes=2 is "missing data" or an >"interim solution". It is simply another way of tagging. Isn't it generally agreed that different ways of tagging must use different keys? Using one key in different ways in places where there can be, or will be a conflict is bound to cause confusion and loss of meaning for all uses. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
