I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red dichotomy. Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped. And the single white line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning that you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to double white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is prohibited).
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 13:29 Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de> wrote: > The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing > lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a > difference based on markings. > > I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not > stretch the turn key a bit. Something along > turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out. > > /Tobi > > > Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson: > > I don't think so. Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the > same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be > counted as lanes: the solid line. > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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 < >> daveswarth...@gmail.com> 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 < >> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> >> 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 >> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
