> > Personally I would prefer a more inclusive definition which requires for > lanes to be recognizable, which could be either through lane markings or > through traffic observation (if the vehicles drive in two lanes it is a > 2-lane road also in absence of road markings). >
> Cheers, Martin > I agree with this. "Only marked lanes" has been annoying for me several times. First, in my old United States neighborhood, many roads are unmarked, with about 10% having a double stripe down the middle. Those 10% are really no different from the rest, and often times the paint won't be reapplied when new asphalt is laid down. So really, there isn't any difference between these roads except for how I'm supposed to tag them. Second, when creating the connectivity relations proposal, people asked about what lane numbering system unmarked roads should be given. I thought that they should be assumed to have 1 lane in each direction, and should accordingly just contain the lane #1. The main thing that is hard here is deciding at which width 1 lane becomes 2. In the United States, unmarked roads are usually wide enough for 2 cars to easily pass each other, so are practically speaking 2 lanes. Here in Europe, many rural roads are only wide enough for 1 car, meaning that a car must pull off the road in order to let another one pass. I really like the "observable lanes" definition, but think that switching to this one would create the need for some extra tag to indicate that the lanes are not actually marked to help data consumers that care about that kind of detail. Best, Leif Rasmussen
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
