[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

Ilya Zverev zverik at textual.ru
Thu Oct 6 11:15:23 BST 2011

Pieren wrote:
> Making the task easier in editor does not work if your schema is
> complex. You can see the current turning lane plugin on JOSM.. .

Yes, actually, that plugin along with the proposal is what made me do 
it in the first place. The plugin makes the tagging scheme look simple, 
when it definitely is not.

> I was also thinking about a solution like yours but again, we split
> ways for what I consider a minor information (turning lanes). And the
> results are quicly becoming unreadable, ex.:
> "lanes:directions:backward=s;s;p"

lanes:directions should be used in complex cases and is not the main 
turn lanes tag. For right-hand traffic s;s;p is a default lane 
arrangement, and lanes:forward=3; lanes:psv:forward=1 are enough (note 
that those two tags are already approved and being used - I tried to use 
existing practices).

> My idea is to stay simple, only for car turning lanes because most of
> the contributors will not spend many time for such things (to not say
> that most of the contributors do not tag lanes at all).

> Complex intersections with psv or cycle lanes will need new drawings
> (polylines for each lane) because the geometry is too complex and
> offer too many cases for a translation into tags only.

Well, I have a task to map turn lanes (and btw psv/hgv lanes can be 
used for turning). There were no good proposals for that, without 
plugins and relations and "lanes:directions:backward=s;s;p". I tried to 
make it as simple as possible, but if it can be made more simple 
(without a requirement for mappers to split all bi-directional ways in 
two) — I'd be happy to improve it.


More information about the Tagging mailing list