[Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Fri May 11 04:44:23 UTC 2018


Let me elaborate a bit.

When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count the
"full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps because traffic law in
some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) define them that way.
So people started using the tag that way and data consumers started writing
software depending on that definition.

Perhaps it would have been better to count cycle lanes as well, but we did
not. For me, this means that with a tag as popular as lanes, we cannot
alter the definition later on. It would mean that we have to retag a lot of
objects and that tagging habits have to change.
Furthermore, the tag would be useless for data consumers until we declare
all lanes-tags to be updated to the new definition.

The lanes tag is pretty useless in general. It just works for simple
layouts with the same number of car-lanes in both directions (or on one-way
streets). For anything more complex the total number of lanes is useless,
and we have to rely on the :lanes-suffix anyhow.
In case of more complex layouts (e.g. odd total number of car-lanes), you
can leave out the lanes tag and only use the :lanes-suffix in combination
with the :forward and :backward suffixes.

The cycleway=lane tag is useful for the (at least in Belgium) common layout
where cycle lanes are on the outside. So lanes=2, cycleway=lane is a common
layout that do not need any additional information. As soon as a cycle lane
is between two car lanes, one could start using the :lanes-suffix
Apparently, we also need to do that when we specify turn:lanes (as the
:lanes-suffix always have to take into account the cycle lanes).

If specify everything with the :lanes-suffix, I do not understand why you
would add the lanes-tag. It does not match what you want and is only some
kind of checksum (control number).

regards

m.

[1] https://wegcode.be/wetteksten/secties/kb/wegcode/258-art72 (in Dutch).

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:49 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll agree with all your tags, as ":lanes" is for all lanes, including
> cycle lanes.
> It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised
> traffic.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180511/64db981d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list