[Talk-GB] Mapping turn lanes on major roads

Chris Hill osm at raggedred.net
Sat Nov 8 10:11:35 UTC 2014

The example you give has not been well mapped and the mapper needs to be contacted to explain about lanes. There is not an extra physical road between the carriageways so it should not be added as such.

On 7 November 2014 23:42:24 GMT, SomeoneElse <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote:
>I'd always assumed that the correct way to map turn lanes is via:
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes .
>However, some mappers in the UK* have started mapping each individual 
>lane as a separate parallel road.  Here's an example:
>That note was obviously written from the point of view that mapping a 
>single carriageway road as one way with appropriate turn lanes tags is 
>"correct"; whether it is or not is the question that I'm asking here.
>So - should we map a dual carriageway as two parallel roads and a
>carriageway as one (with appropriate turn lanes) or is it equally valid
>(or even perhaps better) to map each turn lane as a separate parallel 
>road, even if there's nothing but a broken line of paint between them?
>I'm trying to get some idea of concensus here because obviously it'd be
>wrong for me to go back to another mapper and say "you're not doing it 
>correctly" if there isn't a concensus about the best way to do it, or 
>the concensus is that what they're doing is at least equally valid.
>* and this isn't a question about just one mapper - I've seen a few 
>people do it.  The example junction on the A17 just happens to be one 
>that I spotted today (and a junction that I'm familiar with from
>that section of the Viking Way).
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org

cheers, Chris
osm user, chillly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20141108/ee9139be/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list