lanes = 0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

lanes = 0

Warin
Hi,


There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even
if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not
really a road.


But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
locations. So ... what is it used for?



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

Re: lanes = 0

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 13:01, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even
if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not
really a road.


But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
locations. So ... what is it used for?

I've just had a look at several at random on Overpass & all of them were wrong, with the possible exception of a country highway=unclassified with a note "overgrown by hedgerows"!

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: lanes = 0

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Warin


sent from a phone

> On 13. Jun 2019, at 04:59, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a road.


according to the current definition requiring markings for a lane, one could read lanes=0 meaning no marked lanes.

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

Re: lanes = 0

Warin
On 13/06/19 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 13. Jun 2019, at 04:59, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a road.
>
> according to the current definition requiring markings for a lane, one could read lanes=0 meaning no marked lanes.

Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one lane in either direction.

>
> 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).

That may encourage illegal activity here.


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

Re: lanes = 0

Tobias Zwick
> Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one lane in either direction.

I am kind of a fan of lanes=0, denoting that there are no marked lanes. Here is why:

a. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=2, this situation cannot be distinguished from a road with 2 lanes
b. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=1, this situation cannot be distinguished from a road with 1 marked lane (a oneway road?)

So, in both these cases, the tagging is not explicit.

But it is important to be able to make the distinction. Some reasons:

1. Verifiability: Clearly, "on the ground", a road with 2 lanes looks different from a road with no lanes. A famous example for even a very broad road that has no lanes is Place Charles-de-Gaulle in Paris [1]

2. Legal implications: As far as I know, there are legal implications for roads with no lanes. Depends on the country of course, two examples that come to my mind:

  2.1 In Germany, (afaik) it has implications when passing obstacles. If there are marked lanes, you can only cross into the other lane when it is free, while if there are no marked lanes, whoever reaches the obstacle first may pass first, independent on whose "side" it is

  2.2 In China, the default speed limit if nothing is signed in towns is 50 km/h but on urban roads without a center line, it's 30 km/h [2]

3. Fuzzy/Implicit implications: Software may want to treat roads with unmarked lanes differently from ones that are marked. A few examples:

  3.1 StreetComplete may want to ask surveyors to measure a road width in meters only for unmarked roads because they are likely very thin and the traffic throughput is not clear through the lane count

  3.2 router software may want to slightly prefer roads with lanes>=2 over unmarked roads and/or calculate a virtual lane count from the given width, if any - especially if the maxspeed-tag is missing

  3.3 map rendering software may want to render roads as they appear in reality. F4Map already does this rudimentary [3]

---

Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more explicit. But since this does not exist (yet), lanes=0 would do as well in my opinion because it also reads as "zero (=no) lanes".

Cheers
Tobias

[1] see https://www.google.de/maps/@48.8734657,2.2942766,3a,75y,117.5h,85.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ofE9aRZMKKfWiiB2SiOrQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4ofE9aRZMKKfWiiB2SiOrQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D166.38968%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[2] see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Default_speed_limits

[3] see https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=53.5832254&lon=9.9338489&zoom=19


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

Re: lanes = 0

Warin
On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:

>> Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one lane in either direction.
> I am kind of a fan of lanes=0, denoting that there are no marked lanes. Here is why:
>
> a. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=2, this situation cannot be distinguished from a road with 2 lanes
> b. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=1, this situation cannot be distinguished from a road with 1 marked lane (a oneway road?)
>
> So, in both these cases, the tagging is not explicit.
>
> But it is important to be able to make the distinction. Some reasons:
>
> 1. Verifiability: Clearly, "on the ground", a road with 2 lanes looks different from a road with no lanes. A famous example for even a very broad road that has no lanes is Place Charles-de-Gaulle in Paris [1]
>
> 2. Legal implications: As far as I know, there are legal implications for roads with no lanes. Depends on the country of course, two examples that come to my mind:
>
>    2.1 In Germany, (afaik) it has implications when passing obstacles. If there are marked lanes, you can only cross into the other lane when it is free, while if there are no marked lanes, whoever reaches the obstacle first may pass first, independent on whose "side" it is
>
>    2.2 In China, the default speed limit if nothing is signed in towns is 50 km/h but on urban roads without a center line, it's 30 km/h [2]
>
> 3. Fuzzy/Implicit implications: Software may want to treat roads with unmarked lanes differently from ones that are marked. A few examples:
>
>    3.1 StreetComplete may want to ask surveyors to measure a road width in meters only for unmarked roads because they are likely very thin and the traffic throughput is not clear through the lane count
>
>    3.2 router software may want to slightly prefer roads with lanes>=2 over unmarked roads and/or calculate a virtual lane count from the given width, if any - especially if the maxspeed-tag is missing
>
>    3.3 map rendering software may want to render roads as they appear in reality. F4Map already does this rudimentary [3]
>
> ---
>
> Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more explicit. But since this does not exist (yet), lanes=0 would do as well in my opinion because it also reads as "zero (=no) lanes".

I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???

lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or unmarked as demonstrated above.



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

Re: lanes = 0

Tagging mailing list
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:09:26PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???
>
> lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or unmarked as demonstrated above.

+1

It had never occured to me that the lanes tag required markings: I had
understood it to be mainly an aid for routing, algorithmic or manual.
If it requires marking, then most of my own maping of lanes would need
revision. And since I have no good way of estimating widths, I wouldn't
know how to preserve the information with alternative tagging.

ael


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

Re: lanes = 0

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Warin


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:10 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more explicit. But since this does not exist (yet), lanes=0 would do as well in my opinion because it also reads as "zero (=no) lanes".

I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???

lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or unmarked as demonstrated above.

 I agree with Warin on this, with the extension that we should be counting all lanes, not some lanes. 

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

Re: lanes = 0

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Warin
> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???

1. or lanes:marked=no? (mark_ed_ instead of mark_ing_)

Would be (more) consistent with the naming of opening_hours:signed, collection_times:signed, (1k-2k usages each)

2. or nolanes=yes?

Would be consistent with noname=yes, noaddress=yes, ...

3. or lane_marking=no? I found this on taginfo, it has 90 usages. Personally, I like either 1 or 2 better though.

Point 1 and your (Warin's) suggestion have the advantage that it semantically refers to the lanes-key. Though on the other hand, would that imply that lanes=X should always be tagged if lanes:marked=no is tagged?

Cheers
Tobias

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

Re: lanes = 0

Allroads
A carriageway can have lanes or not.
A lane is a part of a carriageway with visual markings.

In Dutch law we have.
rijbaan = roadway = fahrbahn
and with visual marking, we have
rijstrook = lane = fahrstreifen
If there are no visual markings, there are no rijstroken / fahrstreifen /
lanes.

A two way roadway with no visual markings do not have lanes. lanes=no
There could be lanes=yes, better is to give the number of lanes lanes=2 and
set lanes:forward lanes:backward.

Now, I do not set lanes=no, I like to, so that we can control, if on all
roads lanes tags are set. To see, if there are data gaps.
nolanes=yes is not logic for me.
Are there lanes on a road?  Yes or No.  The answer is no, then the value
must be, no,  so it must be lanes=no.
You do not ask: Are there no lanes on the road? People have problems with
such a questions, mixed answers, failure rate is higher.
Negative question, we must avoid that!
Therefore,  avoid nolanes.







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


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

Re: lanes = 0

Ray Sanders
lanes, at least around here, can be nebulous and variable. Most
hardtop/asphalt roads are 2-lanes (1 in each direction). Graded
limerock roads are unmarked in any way, and usually capable of two
vehicle squeezing past one another, except on a day like today. There
is so much accumulated water that they have effectively become single
lane, with cooperative waiting for oncoming traffic to pass you,
before you can proceed.

lanes=variable anyone ?

On 6/13/19, Allroads <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A carriageway can have lanes or not.
> A lane is a part of a carriageway with visual markings.
>
> In Dutch law we have.
> rijbaan = roadway = fahrbahn
> and with visual marking, we have
> rijstrook = lane = fahrstreifen
> If there are no visual markings, there are no rijstroken / fahrstreifen /
> lanes.
>
> A two way roadway with no visual markings do not have lanes. lanes=no
> There could be lanes=yes, better is to give the number of lanes lanes=2 and
> set lanes:forward lanes:backward.
>
> Now, I do not set lanes=no, I like to, so that we can control, if on all
> roads lanes tags are set. To see, if there are data gaps.
> nolanes=yes is not logic for me.
> Are there lanes on a road?  Yes or No.  The answer is no, then the value
> must be, no,  so it must be lanes=no.
> You do not ask: Are there no lanes on the road? People have problems with
> such a questions, mixed answers, failure rate is higher.
> Negative question, we must avoid that!
> Therefore,  avoid nolanes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: lanes = 0

Philip Barnes
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 12:46 +0100, ael via Tagging wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:09:26PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> > On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> >
> > I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that
> > situation???
> >
> > lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are
> > marked or unmarked as demonstrated above.
>
> +1
>
> It had never occured to me that the lanes tag required markings: I
> had
> understood it to be mainly an aid for routing, algorithmic or manual.
> If it requires marking, then most of my own maping of lanes would
> need
> revision. And since I have no good way of estimating widths, I
> wouldn't
> know how to preserve the information with alternative tagging.
>
In the UK a two way road of less than 4.5m will (usually) have no lane
markings. Locally you can assume that almost any rural road below
secondary will be too narrow to have lanes and there are a few
secondary roads that meet that criteria. And obviously bridges tend to
be narrower.

I tend to map these roads using the width tag.

Commonly a 4m road you can pass other cars comfortably, but have to
slow to pass larger vehicles, 3.5m then you are starting to think about
the timing to be at wider bits to pass oncoming traffic.

Where there are no lanes then the width tag allows routers to make an
informed choice, 4m is reasonable for a a car but not a good idea in a
truck unless it is to reach its destination.

I am not sure if routers use this tag?

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: lanes = 0

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
Ok so to recap. All fairly weak reasons (except 2) here, but let's find the best tag:

1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative

2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes value if no markings are present (see ael's message). Adding "no" as a possible value that is to be applied when no visual markings are present would make a portion of the currently tagged lanes-tags wrong and thus would be a redefinition of the lanes key.

3. lane_marking=no has of the proposed tags the least semantic similarity to the lanes tag but on the other hand is used a few times already and is safe for the "_" instead of the ":" what Warin suggested

4. lanes:mark...=no would maybe imply that lanes=X must be tagged as well?

On 13/06/2019 15:15, Tobias Zwick wrote:

>> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???
>
> 1. or lanes:marked=no? (mark_ed_ instead of mark_ing_)
>
> Would be (more) consistent with the naming of opening_hours:signed, collection_times:signed, (1k-2k usages each)
>
> 2. or nolanes=yes?
>
> Would be consistent with noname=yes, noaddress=yes, ...
>
> 3. or lane_marking=no? I found this on taginfo, it has 90 usages. Personally, I like either 1 or 2 better though.
>
> Point 1 and your (Warin's) suggestion have the advantage that it semantically refers to the lanes-key. Though on the other hand, would that imply that lanes=X should always be tagged if lanes:marked=no is tagged?
>
> Cheers
> Tobias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: lanes = 0

Allroads
First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when there is are visual markings for lanes.
Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?
 
lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes, lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.
 
If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero is nothing.
I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1, they told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, retagged them.
 
Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of the road.
In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.
 
Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you can use it in OSM. (lisence)
Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it. To realign roads.
(A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).
 
Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.
 
lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or lanes=0.
 

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

Re: lanes = 0

Joseph Eisenberg
This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
is not reliable in all of the world.

In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
markings are no longer visible.

There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.

And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
the width was sufficient.

While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
"de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
where painted lane markings are not frequently used.

On 6/15/19, Allroads <[hidden email]> wrote:

> First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when
> there is are visual markings for lanes.
> Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?
>
> lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes,
> lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.
>
> If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero
> is nothing.
> I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1,
> they told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no
> lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, retagged them.
>
> Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
> Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of
> the road.
> In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.
>
> Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you
> can use it in OSM. (lisence)
> Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it.
> To realign roads.
> (A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).
>
> Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
> Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is
> always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
> First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
> So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.
>
> lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a
> possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or
> lanes=0.
>

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

Re: lanes = 0

Warin
+1 with Joseph

OSM is world wide. What is suitable in one place may not work in another.

The use of the tags should follow local customs, the presence of lanes should be judged by local customs,

in Australia they are legally required to be marked for multi lane roads, a road with a lane in each direction does not require markings.

Elsewhere in the world they not be marked but used as multiple lanes.

Tagging the presence/absence of lane markings looks to be a requirement for some.

It could be done as a country wide default, this could ease concerns of some.

I have seen one instance of lane=0 to mean that the 'road' is not wide enough for one lane...
lane=0 is undocumented and has been taken to mean different things by different people.

To me, lane=0 has no true meaning and indicates a problem.




On 15/06/19 09:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> is not reliable in all of the world.
>
> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> markings are no longer visible.
>
> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
>
> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
> the width was sufficient.
>
> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.
>
> On 6/15/19, Allroads <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when
>> there is are visual markings for lanes.
>> Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?
>>
>> lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes,
>> lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.
>>
>> If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero
>> is nothing.
>> I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1,
>> they told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no
>> lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, retagged them.
>>
>> Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
>> Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of
>> the road.
>> In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.
>>
>> Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you
>> can use it in OSM. (lisence)
>> Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it.
>> To realign roads.
>> (A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).
>>
>> Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
>> Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is
>> always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
>> First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
>> So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.
>>
>> lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a
>> possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or
>> lanes=0.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: lanes = 0

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list

14 Jun 2019, 13:04 by [hidden email]:
1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative
I agree, this is a bit overcomplicated.
2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes value if no markings are present (see ael's message). Adding "no" as a possible value that is to be applied when no visual markings are present would make a portion of the currently tagged lanes-tags wrong and thus would be a redefinition of the lanes key.
Blocking lane tagging is a poor idea
3. lane_marking=no has of the proposed tags the least semantic similarity to the lanes tag but on the other hand is used a few times already and is safe for the "_" instead of the ":" what Warin suggested
Seems ok to me
4. lanes:mark...=no would maybe imply that lanes=X must be tagged as well?
I see no obligation that tagging this
would mean that tagging lanes tag is
obligatory.

Also seems ok to me.

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

Re: lanes = 0

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Allroads
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:00:19AM +0200, Allroads wrote:
> First, the consensus in OSM is ....

Sorry, but this thread is clear evidence that statement is false.
And existing mapping also contradicts it.

ael


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

Re: lanes = 0

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> is not reliable in all of the world.
>
> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> markings are no longer visible.
>
> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
>
> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
> the width was sufficient.
>
> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.



This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while they are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it isn’t pursued with high priority ;-)
I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.

We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t forgotten).

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

Re: lanes = 0

Tobias Zwick
Okay, to wrap this up, I added this title in the wiki and referenced back to this discussion, advising to not use lanes=0/1.5/none to signify no lane markings but instead use something like lane_markings=no.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#No_lane_markings

---

Additionally, I noted that after a similar discussion about lanes=1.5 in the German forum in 2017, the wiki page was changed to stress that the lanes-key is for *marked* traffic lanes. The change was announced on the Talk page and the German forum discussion linked there.

I did not change the formulation back but only added the outcome of this discussion to that topic on the Talk page because I do not feel legitimated to do that as the 2017 wiki change was also done only after discussion in the community, same as now:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:lanes#No_centerline_-_one_or_two_lanes.3F

[1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=627975#p627975

On 15/06/2019 18:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
>> is not reliable in all of the world.
>>
>> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
>> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
>> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
>> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
>> markings are no longer visible.
>>
>> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
>> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
>> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
>> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
>>
>> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
>> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
>> the width was sufficient.
>>
>> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
>> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
>> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.
>
>
>
> This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while they are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it isn’t pursued with high priority ;-)
> I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.
>
> We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t forgotten).
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234