[Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Tom Pfeifer said:
>What Martin means is, it depends on physical separation. If the lane is
physically separated e.g. by
>a barrier being at least a kerb, highway=service + service=* is fine. If
not, the lane tagging comes
>in, and we have an established tagging style for lane properties.
————————————————-
I see no requirement that service ways like I'm modeling be
physically separated by some sort of barrier. I have mapped hundreds of
service roads that have no physical separation from the highways they
intersect, abut, or run parallel to. The Wiki defines service roads in
general terms only and it seems like these turnouts would fit into the Wiki
definition.

SelfishSeahorse raises a point about different definitions of "slow moving"
then asks whether it should be our problem. No, it isn't nor is it
important for this discussion.

Dave

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM SelfishSeahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving
> vehicle).  Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch
> climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
>
> This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
> defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
> or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
> USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180909/36381ebf/attachment.html>