[Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Wed May 23 08:27:17 UTC 2018

From: Javier Sánchez Portero <javiersanp at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 17:27
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings


Anyway, for your example of the LR-333 road, most of the time it isn't enough wide for two cars to pass comfortably (see here https://goo.gl/maps/6PC2Wfkfw7A2 like the van has to put the wheel in the border line and probably stop). In this case, lanes=1, oneway=no is the best tagging. 


I agree that for this particular road lanes=1 is appropriate. Some people may tag it as lanes=1.5. But I find non-integer values for lanes quite problematic.


You could use lanes:both_ways=1 (in addition to lanes=1) to be explicit about it, but that is sort of implied. (In the absence of oneway=yes or an explicit lanes:forward or lanes:backward, if the lanes count is odd, it’s assumed the middle lane is both_ways while the remaining lanes are evenly split between forward and backward).



Would you tag the same in GC-210 road?: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/v_G65XwwVnjf0u3i0RxRqA

What I suggest is that the tagging division=no is correct for examples like this.



This one looks like the prototypical:





I don’t think anyone could argue this is a lanes:both_ways=1 (which would be implied by lanes=1 oneway=no, even if not explicitly tagged).




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180523/5daab273/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list