[Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Sep 10 19:46:41 UTC 2018


It's a recentish (late 90s/early 2000s) update to the MUTCD, before that
you would be correct (and usually as a stopgap between striping, places
where this is still the case is highlighted by signage, but this is getting
to be rare as most plsces have had long enough to require a repaint if not
a repave since then).

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the
> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:<forward/backward>=* tags in
> the example in my last message.
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> >
> > I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red
> dichotomy.  Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data
> specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped.  And the single white
> line seems to not be of special significance in most cases, only meaning
> that you need to use additional caution when changing lanes (as opposed to
> double white lines, where lane changes in one or both directions is
> prohibited).
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 13:29 Tobias Wrede <list at tobias-wrede.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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>
> 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> 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
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20180910/041f01d8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list