[Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?
osm at westnordost.de
Thu Nov 19 22:51:59 UTC 2020
Okay, but the data consumer won't know how you reached that decision (to
count it or not). So whoever attempts a visualization of the data will
have no idea whether to put the parking lane next to the rest of the
street or put it "on top" (see
This is not only an issue with visualization, also routers will want to
know if parking cars effectively reduce the usable width of the road by
the width of a car, or not.
This is why I initially stated that I see the need to distinguish these
On 19/11/2020 23:17, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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:
> It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems
> 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
> 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:
> (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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging