[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

Ilya Zverev zverik at textual.ru
Thu Oct 6 09:52:04 BST 2011

> e.g. trunk_turnlanes:left:forward=1 meaning that from this point we 
> have
> a left turning lane till the next intersection with a trunk highway
> ('forward' or 'backward' being relative to the osm way direction as
> usual).

So, are you suggesting to use :forward/backward on nodes? I don't think 
that would go well. It is worse that using relations, since the node is 
implicitly related with a) direction of a way; b) the fact that way is 
not split at that point; c) the highway tag value of some other way far 

> As a result, we just add a node for a minor information and do not
> damage the existing highways.

The big problem is that mappers think splitting ways is damaging them. 

Also, on such level of micromapping (turning lanes are usually several 
meters in length) I guess it is acceptable to work with small ways and 
split them whenever neccessary.


More information about the Tagging mailing list