Best practice in Lane Editing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Best practice in Lane Editing

Horea Meleg

Hello all,

Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427, -83.155894.

Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.

 

Thank you,

Horea Meleg

 

 


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Hans De Kryger
The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually starts

Regards,
Hans

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello all,

Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427, -83.155894.

Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.

 

Thank you,

Horea Meleg

 

 


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Rihards
On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually starts

between 1 & 2 for sure.

> *Regards,**
> *
>
> *Hans*
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello all,____
>
>     Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>     area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>     junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>     -83.155894.____
>
>     ____
>
>     Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>     mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>     consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>     number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thank you,____
>
>     Horea Meleg____
>
>     __ __
>
>     __ __
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-us mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


--
 Rihards

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Horea Meleg
Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?

Thanks,
Horea

-----Original Message-----
From: Rihards [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
To: Hans De Kryger <[hidden email]>; Horea Meleg <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually
> starts

between 1 & 2 for sure.

> *Regards,**
> *
>
> *Hans*
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello all,____
>
>     Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>     area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>     junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>     -83.155894.____
>
>     ____
>
>     Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>     mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>     consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>     number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thank you,____
>
>     Horea Meleg____
>
>     __ __
>
>     __ __
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-us mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


--
 Rihards
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Rihards
On 2017.04.25. 12:19, Horea Meleg wrote:
> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?

i'd probably go for "between where you may and may not enter the lane",
maybe even leaning more towards the beginning of the allowed move.
if you are mapping individual turning lanes, then "between" wouldn't
work that well - for these, i'd err on starting them where one may enter
the lane at the beginning.

> Thanks,
> Horea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rihards [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Hans De Kryger <[hidden email]>; Horea Meleg <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
>
> On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually
>> starts
>
> between 1 & 2 for sure.
>
>> *Regards,**
>> *
>>
>> *Hans*
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello all,____
>>
>>     Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>>     area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>>     junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>>     -83.155894.____
>>
>>     ____
>>
>>     Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>>     mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>>     consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>>     number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Thank you,____
>>
>>     Horea Meleg____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Talk-us mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
>  Rihards
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


--
 Rihards

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Marc Gemis
I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
position of the node. So definitely position "2".
IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes

m

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Rihards <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2017.04.25. 12:19, Horea Meleg wrote:
>> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
>> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>
> i'd probably go for "between where you may and may not enter the lane",
> maybe even leaning more towards the beginning of the allowed move.
> if you are mapping individual turning lanes, then "between" wouldn't
> work that well - for these, i'd err on starting them where one may enter
> the lane at the beginning.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Horea
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rihards [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM
>> To: Hans De Kryger <[hidden email]>; Horea Meleg <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
>>
>> On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>>> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually
>>> starts
>>
>> between 1 & 2 for sure.
>>
>>> *Regards,**
>>> *
>>>
>>> *Hans*
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hello all,____
>>>
>>>     Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit
>>>     area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the
>>>     junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427,
>>>     -83.155894.____
>>>
>>>     ____
>>>
>>>     Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already
>>>     mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you
>>>     consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane
>>>     number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly.____
>>>
>>>     __ __
>>>
>>>     Thank you,____
>>>
>>>     Horea Meleg____
>>>
>>>     __ __
>>>
>>>     __ __
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Talk-us mailing list
>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Rihards
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
>  Rihards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Harald Kliems


On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:09 AM Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
position of the node. So definitely position "2".
IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes

Please note the footnote on the wiki page though: "There is no physical separation between the upper two lanes and the lower ones, just a double solid line. While the editing standards recommend to split the ways only when a physical separation is present, in many regions the ways are already splitted in case of a legal separation like a double solid line. In such a case both resulting ways should be tagged with lanes=2."

So if we go by what is called the "editing standards," the example that Horea posted is correct as is, with a split at position 2 being common but not exactly right because there is no physical barrier. To me that makes sense, as we also wouldn't map a two-lane road with a double yellow line but no median as separate ways. 

 Harald.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Marc Gemis
Oh , I thought position 2 was where the physical barrier ended. Must
have misinterpreted the image



On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Harald Kliems <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:09 AM Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
>> place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
>> should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
>> position of the node. So definitely position "2".
>> IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
>
>
> Please note the footnote on the wiki page though: "There is no physical
> separation between the upper two lanes and the lower ones, just a double
> solid line. While the editing standards recommend to split the ways only
> when a physical separation is present, in many regions the ways are already
> splitted in case of a legal separation like a double solid line. In such a
> case both resulting ways should be tagged with lanes=2."
>
> So if we go by what is called the "editing standards," the example that
> Horea posted is correct as is, with a split at position 2 being common but
> not exactly right because there is no physical barrier. To me that makes
> sense, as we also wouldn't map a two-lane road with a double yellow line but
> no median as separate ways.
>
>  Harald.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Harald Kliems


On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:37 AM Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oh , I thought position 2 was where the physical barrier ended. Must
have misinterpreted the image

So now I would actually say that putting the split at position 2 is wrong. The exit has two exit lanes, and you can exit into the left exit lane all the way up to where the split is right now. Only the right exit lane has the solid white line starting at 2. 

 Harald.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Horea Meleg


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?  I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a "discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where that solid line is. 

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Horea Meleg

Hy Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).

Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be processed:

 

 

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
To: Horea Meleg <[hidden email]>
Cc: Rihards <[hidden email]>; Hans De Kryger <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

 

 

 

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?

 

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?  I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a "discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where that solid line is. 


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best practice in Lane Editing

Paul Johnson-3
No problem, I've updated it and the adjacent frontage roads for how I handle this situation typically (Texas turnarounds and 4-carriageway freeway arrangements are common to frequent in my area).

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hy Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).

Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be processed:

 

 

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
To: Horea Meleg <[hidden email]>
Cc: Rihards <[hidden email]>; Hans De Kryger <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

 

 

 

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be the same in OSM. What do you think?

 

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?  I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a "discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where that solid line is. 



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us