[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Thu May 10 04:55:53 UTC 2018

I strongly dispute the suggestion in the wiki in regards to lane tagging as
this greatly reduces accuracy for complex lane situations and are NOT
analogous to the other excluded situations.  The wiki is wrong.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 23:46 <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right.
>
>
>
> To quote the wiki for lanes:
>
>
>
> The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:lanes>of a
> road.
>
> The following lanes should be *included*:
>
> ·         General purpose [image: [W]] traffic lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane> suitable for vehicles wider than a
> motorbike.
>
> ·         [image: [W]] Bus lanes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane>,
> that are reserved for public service vehicles (PSV), for example buses and
> taxis. Additionally to the total number of lanes, consider to tag the
> number of lanes for PSV with lanes:psv=*, lanes:bus=* and lanes:taxi=*.
>
> ·         [image: [W]] High-occupancy vehicle lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane> (sometimes
> also called carpool lanes, commuter lanes, express lanes, transit lanes).
> The number of such lanes could be tagged using lanes:hov=*.
>
> ·         Other lanes such as [image: Wikipedia-16px.png] spitsstroken
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Spitsstrook>(nl) in the Netherlands or [image:
> Wikipedia-16px.png] temporäre Standstreifen
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen>(de) in
> Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available to traffic at certain
> restricted times, for example during the rush hour.
>
> ·         Longer slip-roads, for example on motorways and other fast
> major roads. Turning lanes for minor roads are not normally included. See
> turn <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn>=* for further details
> about tagging turning lanes.
>
> And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
>
> ·         Minor slip roads without a deceleration/acceleration lane, i.e.
> the main road is wider only because of the intersecting road.
>
> ·         Parking lanes. Consider using parking:lane
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane>=* to provide
> further information.
>
> ·         Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=lane
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane> for those.
>
> ·         Emergency [image: [W]] shoulder lanes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_(road)>. See shoulder
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder>=* for further details.
>
>
>
> So a “normal” two way road with cycleways (in Australia, with left hand
> traffic) would be tagged as:
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> lanes=2
>
> vehicles:lanes:forward=no|yes
>
> vehicles:lanes:backward=no|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|yes
>
> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|yes
>
>
>
> When tagging to this level, I generally try to also add the width:
>
>
>
> width:lanes:forward=1|3
>
> width:lanes:backward=1|3
>
>
>
> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing
> these tagged lanes.
>
>
>
> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your cycle
> lanes…).
>
>
>
> Important: Do NOT include the cycleway lanes in the lanes=x count! The
> lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the
> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different!
> (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the
> :lanes prefix tags by many years, and has been used that way all over the
> place. Mixing different definitions of the lanes key in different places,
> or even just different segments of the same road, is going to result in
> useless, unreliable data as a data consumer will have no way to
> differentiate what definition of lanes=count would apply.)
>
>
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
> for an example of that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:30
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes
>
>
>
> My suggestion:
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> lanes=4
>
> lanes:forward=2
>
> lanes:backward=2
>
> motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no
>
> motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no
>
> bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not
> allowed out of the bike lane on a bike)
>
> bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale for this:  Sometimes things get complicated.  For example, how
> would you smash the following tag scenario into "don't include bike lanes
> in the lane count" schemes?
>
>
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> oneway=yes
>
> lanes=5
>
> turn:lanes=left;through|left;through|through|through|right
>
> bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|yes|designated|yes
>
> motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes
>
>
>
> And sometimes the cycleway=* tag just can't deal with the situation at
> all, like when you have curbside bike lanes and the rest of the lanes are
> shared.
>
>
>
> access:lanes:backward=yes|yes|no
>
> access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|no
>
> bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|designated|designated
>
> bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|designated|designated
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> highway=tertiary
>
> lanes:backward=3
>
> lanes:forward=3
>
> lanes=6
>
> name=South Greenwood Avenue
>
> turn:lanes:backward=left;through|through|through
>
> turn:lanes:forward=left;through|through|through
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes
> for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side.
> Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized
> traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>
> My (basic) tagging would be:
>
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
>
> cycleway:right=lane
>
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
>
> cycleway:left=lane
>
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see
> no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180510/42bfa698/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180510/42bfa698/attachment-0001.png>