[Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Wed Sep 12 09:05:16 UTC 2018


Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the
longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations
already in heavy use.

Does anybody else have input on this?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM SelfishSeahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
wrote:

> SMV seems to be a North American term, e.g. see:
>
> http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/vehicles/slow-moving-vehicle-sign.shtml
> http://safeny.ny.gov/media/SMV-broc4-09.pdf
>
> But i would be fine with slow_vehicle as well.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 18:01, Steve Doerr <doerr.stephen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's scotch this idea of smv straightaway. Whereas PSV, HGV and LGV are
>> well-established abbreviations, at least in UK English, I've never come
>> across slow-moving vehicles referred to as SMVs - this seems to have been
>> made up on the fly in this thread. We don't really like abbreviations in
>> OSM anyway. As slow-moving_vehicle is a bit of a mouthful, I'd suggest
>> slow_vehicle as a reasonable tag to use. Or crawler.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/2018 13:07, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I guess the consensus here is that, even though I dislike it, I
>> must use the lanes approach. In my original tagging, I had invented a new
>> category of service road, service=slow_vehicle_turnout, but perhaps an
>> abbreviated form of slow_moving_vehicle would be more consistent and easier
>> in the end. In the example provided by SelfishSeahorse, he uses
>> smv:lanes:forward=|designated (as well as its counterpart in lanes:forward)
>> and that seems consistent with other abbreviated tags, like hov and hgv so
>> I'll use that terminology in my tagging. Perhaps someone of you would like
>> to add the smv abbreviation and description to the Wiki.
>>
>> Thanks for the input and discussion,
>>
>> AlaskaDave
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:24 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > 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, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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).
>>>
>>> The states have had considerable leeway in how they mark their own
>>> highways (the Federal government has control only on the highways that
>>> it funds).  New York has used a single solid white line to mean 'lane
>>> crossing discouraged but not prohibited' for the 45 years that I've
>>> been driving here. Prohibited lane crossings have, for at least that
>>> long, been set off by double lines or by partial-barrier lines with
>>> the solid line toward the lane that must not be departed from.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that the meaning of a single solid yellow line has
>>> varied from 'crossing discouraged', to 'crossing forbidden but left
>>> turns permitted', to 'crossing prohibited'. The current drivers'
>>> manual states that they have the same regulatory effect as a double
>>> yellow line. (Left turns across a double yellow are permitted only
>>> when they can be accomplished without impeding traffic in either
>>> direction and only into private driveways, entrances and alleys.) The
>>> only single yellow center lines I've seen in the last couple of
>>> decades have been on private roads, where they mean, 'the owner was
>>> too cheap to shell out for enough paint for standard markings.'
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> <#m_-3902864256643922471_m_-3098846559126106569_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


-- 
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/20180912/26e0509a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list