lanes = 0

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

Re: extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 3. Jul 2019, at 17:14, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

Similarly, when I
do a survey and I notice that a house does not have the usual sign
indicating its house number, I can said that the sign is not there.


yes, and if they advertize their street address including “snc” it means they do not have a housenumber assigned. Here’s a real life example of a trash service point:



Ciao, Martin 

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

Re: extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

marc marc
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Le 03.07.19 à 17:36, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 16:16, marc marc wrote:
>     Le 03.07.19 à 16:55, Paul Allen a écrit :
>>> What "unsigned" doesn't do is identify how the mapper came
>>> to any conclusion about the weight
>>> limit or how other mappers may verify it.
>>     unsigned just said "no info on the ground"
> The same can be achieved by omitting the tag.  

without a tag, you can't tell if somebody have already check
for a sign or if you need to survey it.
you cannot tell the difference between a lanes=2 road with road markings
and a lanes=2 road without road markings (see previous thread)

> A fixme is better because quality tools can help mappers  
> see where more information is needed.

No sign on the ground is not an error in osm, it's a fact !
My neighbour did not put the regulatory sign on his new house,
unsigned=addr:housenumber changeset source=survey (so no more need
for other contributors to do a survey the next day)
another day, somebody may add addr:housenumber=<his number> changeset
source=local knowledge or opendata
what do you want a contributor to correct in osm ?
fixme is fully wrong when nothing need to be fixe in osm

the same for a road without lanes marking
the same for a bridge without maxheight sign
none of them is an "stuff to fix in osm"

> an object can end up with maxweight=3.5 + unsigned=maxweight

Yes, it can happen.

> without telling anyone how or why the mapper decided
> that the maxweight is, in fact, 3.5.

check the source of the changeset that add maxweight=3.5
unsigned=* doesn't try to replace the source tag

> you cannot deduce what the absent sign is about.

I think you read my message a little too quickly.
unsigned=maxspeed is about maxspeed
unsigned=maxheight is about maxheight.
unsigned=<the name of the key> is about this key

I just propose to replace a variety of inconsistent tags
by a structured schema for all, for exemple :

maxheight:sign=no (and maybe maxheight=default)-> unsigned=maxheight
lanes:marking=no and lanes:unmarked=yes-lanes=unmarked > unsigned=lanes
nosign=yes (but nobody known for witch sign) -> unsigned=<the key for
the expected info>
marking=unmarked (but nobody known for witch sign) -> unsigned=<the
expected info>
fixme/note/description=no <key> sign -> unsigned=key
info=unmarked -> unsigned=<the key for the expected info>

>>     Similarly, when I  do a survey and I notice that a house
>>     does not have the USUAL sign indicating  
>>     its house number, I can said that the sign is not there.
> Which would be a little annoying around here, because maybe a tenth of
> the houses do not have numbers, only names.
> Most of those name-only houses have never had numbers.
> You think it sensible to tag unsigned=addr:housenumber for those?

I was saying "does not have the USUAL sign"
if it's common that houses don't have a addr:housenumber,
it's not very useful to put unsigned=addr:housenumber.
as it's not very useful to put it on a tree or a field.
an app/a contributor can use common sense to be satisfied
with addr:housenumber or addr:housename

I'm not proposing to decide WHEN a contributor should or should
not add the information of a missing sign.
I just propose a unified tag when it DOES add it.

> I don't think it actually solves any issues that are not better handled
> with a fixme or a source tag, or simply omitting the tag.

do you propose that app like streetcomplete or that contributors who
have added one of the many tags I listed above add a fixme "nosign,
maybe something to fix, maybe not" just "in case of" ?
it's noise these fixme that indicates a fact and not a problem to solve.
or do you suggest that the contributors who add these tags don't add
anything to make it uniform ? It seems to me a solution that has no
chance of being accepted, check taginfo, some mapper add it.
so the question is: a different tag for each missing sign
or a tag for all ?

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

Re: lanes = 0

Jérôme Seigneuret-3
In reply to this post by Richard Z.
Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road. Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly). This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition to pass because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is no condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point you shall apply civility rules.
On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane. there is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters specificty for foot



Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> 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?

this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible

Richard

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


--
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret

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

Re: lanes = 0

dieterdreist


Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <[hidden email]>:
Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!


if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

Cheers,
Martin
 

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

Re: lanes = 0

voschix
In reply to this post by Jérôme Seigneuret-3
Comments on the  Key:lanes page

1) Heading "Narrow roads"
The pageit proposes:
width=4
source:width=estimated
This construct is used 5k times acording to TI.
est_widh=x

is used 40k times, and hence should be mentioned at least.
Furthermore the established tag
passing_places=yes

which has its own wiki page and is used 7k times, is missing in the text
2) "Assumptions" table:
The most frequent assumptions are missing, i.e. the case no lane count and no indication of oneway/two-way.
Also, highway=path should not have an assumed lane count, as it is normally not suitable for car-width vehicles
3) Examples
Bicycle lanes on cycleways
Under the heading "Description" the page says
"And the following lanes should be excluded:
... Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway=lane for those."
but, under  "Examples" the page shows a bidirectional stand-alone cycleway with a dashed separator with "lanes=2".,
a situation which I would have tagged highway=cycleway; oneway:bicycle=no, but wihthout lanes=x tag
4) No line markings
Under the heading "No line markings" 
the proposal, which is hidden there, i.e.lane_markings=no opens a potential can of worms.
This tag is used 13 times in total. And there are zillions of roads that have no markings in the real world.






On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:32, Jérôme Seigneuret <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road. Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly). This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition to pass because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is no condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point you shall apply civility rules.
On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane. there is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters specificty for foot



Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> 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?

this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible

Richard

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


--
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
_______________________________________________
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

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

That's logical but not particularly useful.  Around here there are a lot of minor roads.  Some of
them are only wide enough for one vehicle, so are unmarked.  By your logic that's lanes=0.
Some of them are wide enough for two vehicles, but still unmarked.  By your logic that's
also lanes=0.  For many of us, it's nice to know if an unmarked road is only wide enough
for one vehicle (so you might have to back up to a passing place one or more times) or
wide enough for two vehicles.  The presence or absence of marking can really only be
used to infer the presence or absence of marking and nothing more.

--
Paul


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

Re: lanes = 0

Jérôme Seigneuret-3
if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. 

No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not. This a routing comportement. 

You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural France road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right position on road.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/bPYmBV9vGQr2CxoSIKGfRw this is 2 lanes departmental road. In fact in some routing tools if there is no lane there is no road. A lane is not in relation to road marking.

Same remark as Paul

Le mar. 30 juil. 2019 à 13:33, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

That's logical but not particularly useful.  Around here there are a lot of minor roads.  Some of
them are only wide enough for one vehicle, so are unmarked.  By your logic that's lanes=0.
Some of them are wide enough for two vehicles, but still unmarked.  By your logic that's
also lanes=0.  For many of us, it's nice to know if an unmarked road is only wide enough
for one vehicle (so you might have to back up to a passing place one or more times) or
wide enough for two vehicles.  The presence or absence of marking can really only be
used to infer the presence or absence of marking and nothing more.

--
Paul

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


--
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret

_______________________________________________
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 voschix
I, for one, consider not including bicycle lanes to be a harmful shortcoming.  It tells you nothing about where, how many or what turn restrictions apply to the bicycle lanes, all because bicycle lanes don't count because reasons.  It also means lane guidance where bicycle lanes exist will automatically be off by a lane and makes it useless for cyclists, who need lane information more given relative difficulty changing lanes.  This is something that desperately needs to change. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 06:27 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Comments on the  Key:lanes page

1) Heading "Narrow roads"
The pageit proposes:
width=4
source:width=estimated
This construct is used 5k times acording to TI.
est_widh=x

is used 40k times, and hence should be mentioned at least.
Furthermore the established tag
passing_places=yes

which has its own wiki page and is used 7k times, is missing in the text
2) "Assumptions" table:
The most frequent assumptions are missing, i.e. the case no lane count and no indication of oneway/two-way.
Also, highway=path should not have an assumed lane count, as it is normally not suitable for car-width vehicles
3) Examples
Bicycle lanes on cycleways
Under the heading "Description" the page says
"And the following lanes should be excluded:
... Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway=lane for those."
but, under  "Examples" the page shows a bidirectional stand-alone cycleway with a dashed separator with "lanes=2".,
a situation which I would have tagged highway=cycleway; oneway:bicycle=no, but wihthout lanes=x tag
4) No line markings
Under the heading "No line markings" 
the proposal, which is hidden there, i.e.lane_markings=no opens a potential can of worms.
This tag is used 13 times in total. And there are zillions of roads that have no markings in the real world.






On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:32, Jérôme Seigneuret <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road. Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly). This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition to pass because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is no condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point you shall apply civility rules.
On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane. there is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters specificty for foot



Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> 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?

this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible

Richard

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


--
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
_______________________________________________
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

Mateusz Konieczny-3



30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by [hidden email]:
This is something that desperately needs to change. 
Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?).


_______________________________________________
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 Jérôme Seigneuret-3
Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <[hidden email]>:
if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. 

No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not. This a routing comportement. 



maybe you just can't assume in your router that the OSM tag lanes describes what you expect for lanes?

 
You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural France road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right position on road.


Sorry for being ambiguous, I was referring to the wiki definition of the tag lanes. I agree that there can be lanes without lane markings, observable lanes. I have to deal with the same situation in Italy. Basically what I am doing is adding lanes=2 if there are 2 lanes, even if they are not marked. ;-)
Interestingly, one of those roads I was thinking of, just has gotten (or renewed) lane markings. It may often be a maintenance question, markings being renewed in such long intervals, that there are years without markings but then they might eventually return.

I'm even tempted sometimes to add lanes=1.5, although these cases are better described with a width.

Cheers,
Martin



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

Re: lanes = 0

Jérôme Seigneuret-3
@martin this is a problem on what is accepted as a 1 lane because if you are on a path there is also 1 lane but accepted size is less than what?

highway type need have a base width to appreciate or range values If you have 1 or more lanes. This case is for normal gabarit what about motorcycle | car or car | truck.

This is the problem we need defined if there is no marked. width can help to appreciete that situation but by default there is 1 lane forword and 1 lane backward.
What is the base frame to define lanes in a model? car? truck? motorcycle? specifics width?


Le mar. 30 juil. 2019 à 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <[hidden email]>:
if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. 

No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not. This a routing comportement. 



maybe you just can't assume in your router that the OSM tag lanes describes what you expect for lanes?

 
You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural France road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right position on road.


Sorry for being ambiguous, I was referring to the wiki definition of the tag lanes. I agree that there can be lanes without lane markings, observable lanes. I have to deal with the same situation in Italy. Basically what I am doing is adding lanes=2 if there are 2 lanes, even if they are not marked. ;-)
Interestingly, one of those roads I was thinking of, just has gotten (or renewed) lane markings. It may often be a maintenance question, markings being renewed in such long intervals, that there are years without markings but then they might eventually return.

I'm even tempted sometimes to add lanes=1.5, although these cases are better described with a width.

Cheers,
Martin


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


--
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret

_______________________________________________
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 Mateusz Konieczny-3
I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never should have been there in the first place.  Like whoever came up with the current concept hates cyclists or something.

An analogous situation would be of someone decided ground floors don't count.  Of course we'd fix that.  This isn't something that could not be rapidly resolved with a Maproulette, either.  Let's fix this glitch. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 08:12 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:



30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by [hidden email]:
This is something that desperately needs to change. 
Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?).

_______________________________________________
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

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
This topic again? We had this just a few weeks back and we actually reached to a conclusion that lanes=0 should NOT be used to denote that there are no marked lanes.

I believe I also documented that conclusion on the wiki, prompting here for review.

Tobias

On July 30, 2019 1:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
>[hidden email]>:
>
>> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!
>>
>
>
>if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes
>(as
>it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked
>lanes.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

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

Someone in OSM hates cyclists? Shurely Shome Mistake! (was: lanes = 0 )

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
On 30/07/2019 15:26, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never
> should have been there in the first place.  Like whoever came up with
> the current concept hates cyclists or something.

... or perhaps they came from a country that _really loves cyclists_ and
all cycling infrastructure there is separated from motor vehicle
infrastructure :)

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
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 dieterdreist
Also, the mention of that lanes key (should) only be used to denote the number of MARKED lanes was added in 2017 after a short discussion in the German forum about the same topic.

However, in this topic here on the ML, arguments were brought forth that made us get to a different conclusion (the one documented in the wiki, see recent change history) which is why I consider the decision reached in 2017 (to only include marked lanes) obsolete.

Tobias

On July 30, 2019 1:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
>[hidden email]>:
>
>> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!
>>
>
>
>if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes
>(as
>it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked
>lanes.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

_______________________________________________
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 Paul Johnson-3


30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by [hidden email]:
I don't see it as redefining lanes
It is not changing that it would redefine
meaning of this tag.

So it would require survey of all 
places tagged with lanes tag so
it is not going to happen.

_______________________________________________
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
Not really, no, you could easily Maproulette this for items tagged cycleway=lane.  Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 13:24 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:


30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by [hidden email]:
I don't see it as redefining lanes
It is not changing that it would redefine
meaning of this tag.

So it would require survey of all 
places tagged with lanes tag so
it is not going to happen.
_______________________________________________
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

Paul Allen
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Yes, but modal verbs are tricky. :)  I agree it SHOULD be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it
CAN be fixed.  And even if it CAN be fixed, that doesn't mean it WILL be fixed.

Redefining lanes means we also need to re-examine all of them.  Some will be obvious
from aerial imagery, some will need feet on the ground. And then we need to agree on
an additional tag (which could just be a note, but with formal syntax) to show that the
lanes tag has been used in a way that conforms to the new definition, or mappers are going
to waste time checking the same roads many times.

Better would be to come up with a new tag for it.  That way you know if the road has an old
lanes=n tag or a new whatever=n tag and don't have to re-examine if it has the new tag.
However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n (I don't
know if it does or not) then the carto guys may completely ignore our nice, new
whatever=n tag because they seem to have a strict rule about "no aliases" and they might
consider whatever=n to be an alias of lanes=n.

Oh, and you'd have to get editors and routers to support the new whatever=n tag, although
that probably isn't an insurmountable problem.

Don't hold your breath for a change.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
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
Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard?  And since when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none at all except for this specific thing? 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:04 Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Yes, but modal verbs are tricky. :)  I agree it SHOULD be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it
CAN be fixed.  And even if it CAN be fixed, that doesn't mean it WILL be fixed.

Redefining lanes means we also need to re-examine all of them.  Some will be obvious
from aerial imagery, some will need feet on the ground. And then we need to agree on
an additional tag (which could just be a note, but with formal syntax) to show that the
lanes tag has been used in a way that conforms to the new definition, or mappers are going
to waste time checking the same roads many times.

Better would be to come up with a new tag for it.  That way you know if the road has an old
lanes=n tag or a new whatever=n tag and don't have to re-examine if it has the new tag.
However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n (I don't
know if it does or not) then the carto guys may completely ignore our nice, new
whatever=n tag because they seem to have a strict rule about "no aliases" and they might
consider whatever=n to be an alias of lanes=n.

Oh, and you'd have to get editors and routers to support the new whatever=n tag, although
that probably isn't an insurmountable problem.

Don't hold your breath for a change.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
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

Paul Allen
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:27, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard?

I'm not fighting against a good idea.  I agree that the current situation is broken.  But I've
been on this list long enough to understand that there are problems in changing the
status quo.

OSM is anarchic in nature.  In many ways, that is a good thing.  But it's not conducive to
joined-up thinking.

And since when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none at all except for this specific thing?

I'm not against fixing the lanes problem.  I've supported similar changes in the past.
And seen what happened to them.  The best I hope for these days is that somebody will
figure out a way of getting a good idea implemented instead of running up against the
same old obstacles.

Redefining lanes has no chance.  A replacement tag might have.  But you go ahead and
try to redefine lanes, if you wish.  Good luck with that.

--
Paul


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