[Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Kevin Kenny]

It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation
that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for
slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the
near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to
overtaking traffic by moving to the outside (that is, in North
America, to the right). The difference, at least where I am, between a
climbing lane and another ordinary lane is a subtle one: you don't
have to move to the outside if nobody's trying to overtake, rather
than a "keep right except to pass" rule. You get 90% of the way there
by simply having the correct number of lanes:forward and
lanes:backward. Is adding a lane that much more complicated than
drawing a parallel way?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say that it would be better to leave them unmapped than to incorrectly map them as separate service roads.
> If they are only divided by a single painted line, they are just lanes, not a separate roadway.
> And it's not too difficult to split the way twice and paste on a couple of tags
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thanks for the help, Markus. I really appreciate it.
>>
>> But I must say, if I have to use that method to tag all the turnouts on the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>>
>> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple, much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than the lanes technique.
>>
>> Thanks to all,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best solution but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts?  Here is another screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout on both sides of the road that I've been discussing (59.752103, -151.766395 ) with the ways removed for clarity: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nm6iahw9ch79tuh/slow_vehicle_turnout.jpg?dl=0
>>>
>>> I would probably split the road at every place where an additional
>>> lane begins or ends, i.e. four times, and would tag the sections as
>>> follows from right to left (this is the direction of the highway way):
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=1
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=4
>>> lanes:forward=2
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:forward=yes|no
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=3
>>> lanes:forward=1
>>> lanes:backward=2
>>> smv:lanes:backward=|designated
>>> overtaking:lanes:backward=yes|no
>>>
>>> lanes=2
>>>
>>> In case the turnouts were separated by a barrier, i think your idea
>>> with highway=service + service=slow_vehicle_turnout would make sense.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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