Ways divided by paint?

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

Ways divided by paint?

General Discussion mailing list
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."

In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based solely on a painted surface?




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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
I would consider such mapping as linked as incorrect and delete this extra ways
on encountering  them in my normal mapping.

Is there any reason to handle this situation in other way? Maybe there are some physical
barriers (for example concrete blocks) installed there?


3 Jul 2019, 22:03 by [hidden email]:
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."

In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based solely on a painted surface?





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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Tom Pfeifer
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are
> physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> said flows."

Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes (and maybe change:lanes).

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496

This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be one of the few
exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for the left turn.
Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate turn instruction at the
point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be necessary.

tom

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Context is important.  If it's being controlled as a separate way (like an angled deceleration or acceleration lane, or a flush median porkchop, or the gore on a median bullnose), that's a good candidate for placement=transition.

Keep in mind this gets super messy if you dont take context and intent into account:  LAX becomes one, giant, continuous sheet of asphalt and concrete instead of distinct runways, aprons and taxiways since all of the infields are just part of the same paved surface painted green. 

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 15:11 Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."

In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based solely on a painted surface?



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

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Tom Pfeifer
I agree that in this case I would tolerate it, but is it still allowed
to turn from East Mineral avenue to the  North-South, unclassified
highway?
If not, one should add turn restrictions.

regards

m

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 PM Tom Pfeifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> > I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are
> > physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > said flows."
>
> Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes (and maybe change:lanes).
>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>
> This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be one of the few
> exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for the left turn.
> Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate turn instruction at the
> point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be necessary.
>
> tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Snusmumriken
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk
wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said
> flows."

A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.


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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Hi,

On 03.07.19 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g.,
> grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."

Yes, that's the standard operating procedure around here, albeit perhaps
with an added "easy" before movements. For example, if there's a small
raised curb with a little grass strip, it is still something you can
cross with your car or bike but it would be enough to make two separate
ways, whereas a simple line would not.

Way separation is not about the legal aspect ("do not cross this line")
but about the physical.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Snusmumriken
I strongly disagree with this idea,
and multiple times changed such splits
back to one way.


Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by [hidden email]:
On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk
wrote:
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
(e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said
flows."

A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Snusmumriken


sent from a phone

> On 4. Jul 2019, at 11:49, Snusmumriken <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.


it doesn’t apply to many people though, for example pedestrians or emergency vehicles.
The definition for a separate highway way is that it implies a separate carriageway. We’ve set it like this. IMHO it can hardly put into discussion at this point. If you want to map by a different definition, safest would be to use a different key.

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Snusmumriken
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this idea,
> and multiple times changed such splits
> back to one way.

I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
database.

>
>
> Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by [hidden email]:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via
> > talk
> > wrote:
> > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate
> > > traffic
> > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > > said
> > > flows."
> >
> > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.



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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Philip Barnes
On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with this idea,
> > and multiple times changed such splits
> > back to one way.
>
> I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
> information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
> database.
>
It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving the mapping by changing such misleading information to correctly mapped turn lanes then it is improving the map.

Phil (trigpoint)



 

> >
> >
> > Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by [hidden email]:
> > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via
> > > talk
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate
> > > > traffic
> > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > > > said
> > > > flows."
> > >
> > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

--
Sent from my Sailfish device
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Mike N.
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On 7/4/2019 7:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this idea,
> and multiple times changed such splits
> back to one way.


   What if strictly following the rule of "no split ways unless physical
divider" results in wildly incorrect turn-by-turn instructions?  For
example -

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/34.93102/-82.32703

   Traveling SouthEast on Reid School Road and transitioning to Edwards
Mill Road; there's no divider and this rule would remove the short 1-way
link.   Turn by Turn instructions would change from "Bear slight
right..."  to "turn right, then left at the stop sign".

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
If mappers are permitted to create numerous new ways based solely on a painted surface, intersections will become completely choked with lanes and will become unmanageable.

In the given example, turns were already permitted prior to the additional superfluous lanes being added. This creates confusion and unnecessary clutter and should not be encouraged. The intersection was fine before the addition of the highway links. The new links add nothing to the map other than clutter.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57344/-104.98491

- chachafish

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Lester Caine
In reply to this post by Mike N.
On 04/07/2019 15:24, Mike N wrote:
> What if strictly following the rule of "no split ways unless physical
> divider" results in wildly incorrect turn-by-turn instructions?

I have the same problem with the right turn lane being removed from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.11366/-1.94141 ... one can
transition from the A46 to the A44 heading north WITHOUT having to stop
for the roundabout. Because the only separation IS a crosshatch area the
slip road has been removed but there is NOTHING to indicate that this
slip road even exists by any other tagging! Unless someone has an
'approved' way of adding it back?

Personally I think that micro-mapping complex junctions does require
multiple ways even if the planned routes through a junction can be
abused by taking the wrong path ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Snusmumriken
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:44 +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:

> On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > I strongly disagree with this idea,
> > > and multiple times changed such splits
> > > back to one way.
> >
> > I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground
> > truth
> > information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in
> > the
> > database.
> >
> It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving
> the mapping by changing such misleading information to correctly
> mapped turn lanes then it is improving the map.

Turn lane tagging is great and it certainly has its place osm mapping.
But in my experience of mapping it cannot replace the need to sometimes
split ways at a legal barrier to get a complete picture of how the
traffic can legally flow and thus provide a relevant routing
suggestion.


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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Snusmumriken

4 lip 2019, 15:20 od [hidden email]:
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
I strongly disagree with this idea,
and multiple times changed such splits
back to one way.

I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
database.
I (obviously) add all necessary turn
restrictions.

As result I remove incorrect claim
that road is dual carriageway
without information loss.

And why you consider moving to a
standard tagging as a vandalism.

On topic of ground truth -
so far in all cases I did after spotting
incorrect mapping during a survey 

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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 04/07/19 22:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Jul 2019, at 11:49, Snusmumriken <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
>> perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.
>
> it doesn’t apply to many people though, for example pedestrians or emergency vehicles.

I have seen emergency vehicle cross physical barriers.

So by extension physical barriers should not be mapped. Which would be ridiculous.

> The definition for a separate highway way is that it implies a separate carriageway. We’ve set it like this. IMHO it can hardly put into discussion at this point. If you want to map by a different definition, safest would be to use a different key.

The definition of 'separation' relies on the local definition?

If there is a need to map barriers that provide emergency use .. then perhaps OSM should tag that with a different key.

If there is a requirement to distinguish between barriers of (leagl) paint and those of some height .. use the height key for those of some height.
The tag already exists and would provide emergency vehicles with information - a highway patrol vehicle may not cross something with height=.2 but a police 4WD rescue vehicle could.



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

Re: Ways divided by paint?

Mike N.
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
On 7/4/2019 10:33 AM, Jack Armstrong [hidden email] wrote:
> In the given example, turns were already permitted prior to the additional superfluous lanes being added. This creates confusion and unnecessary clutter and should not be encouraged. The intersection was fine before the addition of the highway links. The new links add nothing to the map other than clutter.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57344/-104.98491

   The links do improve turn-by-turn instructions, in the case of
following a large vehicle and not being sure where to leave the main
lane of traffic to make a left turn.    But it's also possible that
adding turn lanes and/or change:lanes could work (but I'm not familiar
with change:lanes enough to know for sure).

    I think some areas are more likely to add a physical divider based
on history of traffic flow and available funds.

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