[Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

Jason Cunningham jamicuosm at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 26 19:03:39 BST 2012

On 26 April 2012 10:30, Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and
> currently available here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt
> If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article
> tomorrow.

I suppose I've got a few "major objections", and a few minor

*Major problem:* You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue.
You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks
like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it.

The example given for the 'narrow' road, which you advise should be tagged
as lanes=2 looks more like lanes=1 especially as there is a need for a
passing place.

*Major Problem:* The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The
'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the
lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes
are present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present.
But surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage
people not to add the data.

highway=path is considered not to be for motor vehicles, but the assumption
is correct if the path has been tagged accessible to a type of vehicle.

Assumptions for mortorway/trunk need to be clarified because these
highways  are commonly considered to consist of two carriageways? and
mapping guidance has always stated the the carriageways should be mapped as
two separate way? I'd simply remove the "4 or more" and leave that box

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120426/b232b9b6/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list