[Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Tobias Wrede]

The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing 
lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a 
difference based on markings.

I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not 
stretch the turn key a bit. Something along 
turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out.

/Tobi


Am 10.09.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> I don't think so.  Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be 
> the same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes 
> shouldn't be counted as lanes: the solid line.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:selfishseahorse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout
>     <daveswarthout at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Tagging mailing list
>     > Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20180910/c43cefed/attachment-0001.html>