[Tagging] lanes = 0

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Jun 15 16:55:12 UTC 2019



sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> is not reliable in all of the world.
> 
> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> markings are no longer visible.
> 
> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
> 
> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
> the width was sufficient.
> 
> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.



This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while they are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it isn’t pursued with high priority ;-)
I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.

We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t forgotten).

Cheers, Martin 


More information about the Tagging mailing list