[Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 22:17:22 UTC 2020

The way I understood the tagging guidelines was that if there was nobody
parked there, could you drive along the lane as usual. If you can't then I
wouldn't include it as lanes=* and only tag it as parking:lane. If you can
drive along it when vacant, but you can still legally park there then I'd
include it as lanes=* and also tag parking:lane.

It's common that during peak hour the lane is used by traffic, but off-peak
it's available for parking.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 01:22, Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:

> Hello all
> First of all, in the past, we have explored many edge cases for the
> lanes-tag in various discussions and I am happy that for the most part,
> it seems to be quite well defined by now. However, there is one edge
> case which is not uncommon at all but still unclear or awkward to tag.
> Look at this:
> https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg
> It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems obvious
> to tag it with lanes=2. But on the other hand, you'll notice that there
> are parking cars on the right side that effectively render the right
> lane unusable. These parking cars would (currently) be tagged I believe as
> parking:lane:right=parallel
> parking:lane:right:parallel=on_street
> And the wiki states
>  > And the following lanes should be excluded:
>  > [...] Parking lanes [...]
> So here is an ambiguity in the documentation. On the one hand, if the
> road has marked lanes, the number of marked lanes should be tagged, on
> the other hand, there are these kind of "parking lanes" which do not
> have their own space marked as a parking lane but simply absorb the
> space assigned to normal car traffic. In OSM tagging, these are also
> "parking:lane"s as far as I know.
> We need to dissolve this ambiguity by defining a way how to distinguish
> between these two cases:
> https://westnordost.de/misc/parallel_parking_lane.png
> (1) a dedicated parallel parking lane. This lane should not count as a
> lane in the lanes-tag.
> (2) (parallel) parking is allowed (and used). This should be irrelevant
> for the lane count.
> My suggestion would be
> (1) parking:lane:*:parallel = lane
> (2) parking:lane:*:parallel = on_street
> Maybe especially those who recently involved themselves with parking
> lane tagging out and about and its documentation could also state their
> point of view here. According to the wiki edit history, looks like at
> least Mateusz Konieczny, Supaplex030 and Minh Nguyễn were active.
> What do you think?
> There is also at least one data consumer I know about that is using
> parking lane information and displays it visually,
> https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet it would be good to know how
> they interpret and visualize the data.
> Cheers
> Tobias
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201120/a4be038b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list