[Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Bryan Housel bryan at 7thposition.com
Thu Aug 25 14:40:19 UTC 2016


This was discussed extensively on the tagging mailing list 2 months ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html>

The consensus at the time was that combinations including ‘none’ are not valid, and people should use `transit:lanes` style tags to indicate what happens to a lane - whether it branches, forks, or ends.

see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/transit <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/transit>  for more details.

At the time of that thread, I did use taginfo to search for values like `none;left` or `none;slight_right`, and there were only a handful of such lanes worldwide - maybe 10 or so.

Thanks, Bryan



> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:48 AM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have to disagree. If that's how to interpret the tags, then the tagging definition is deficient. 
> 
> Under that interpretation, how do you tag a lane that both continues and branches off as an exit, but doesn't have signage that it continues? 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology
> 
> On August 25, 2016 1:22:58 AM EDT, David Mease <meased3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on the lane. The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no indications and a slight right indication on the lane, which is of course impossible. These "scripted" edits are therefore a correct interpretation of the original tagging. The problem here is that the original tagging was incorrect.
> 
> On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com <mailto:burkejf3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and endless line of "|||||||||" to try to parse.  My eyesight isn't getting better as I get older.
>> 
>> Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I wouldn't have bothered saying anything.  But when their edits turned continuing lanes into exit-only lanes...well, then it became a *problem*.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com <mailto:tod at fitchdesign.com>> wrote:
>> I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area where they changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and then revert them manually.
>> 
>> I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those of us editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make sure the lane count is correct and matches what is on the ground is harder than counting the “|” occurrences. At least it is for me and I’ve had decades of practice counting open and close parens to make sure compilers wouldn’t squawk at me because they weren’t balanced.
>> 
>> And while I haven’t seen a “none;slight_right”, it looks syntacticly correct and I can imagine cases where it might be used and would defer to the local mapper who used it. (The ones in my area are much more likely to be “through;slight_right”.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com <mailto:burkejf3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, it's https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193 <https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193>
>>> 
>>> And they appear to be telling me that the combination "none;slight_right" isn't valid.
>>> 
>>> Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they know none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway.  And the worst part of it is that while they're using a script to *find* what they think is invalid, they're *manually* making the changes.
>>> 
>>> --jack
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryger13 at gmail.com <mailto:hans.dekryger13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> The link Jack's talking about,
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180 <https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray" <toby.murray at gmail.com <mailto:toby.murray at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue?
>>> 
>>> Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it
>>> with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down immediately.
>>> "none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind
>>> seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to be discussed
>>> before it is done.
>>> 
>>> Toby
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com <mailto:burkejf3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
>>> > reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that
>>> > is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe
>>> > other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>>> >
>>> > The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of road
>>> > that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an exit.
>>> > My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was replaced by
>>> > "||||slight_right".
>>> >
>>> > While, per the wiki, there's nothing particularly wrong with a null value
>>> > for a field vs. specifying "none" as the value, it *does* make a difference
>>> > when there are two values in the field, as in my example above.  They turned
>>> > a continue-on-or-exit lane into an exit-only lane.
>>> >
>>> > So if you find broken lane guidance like that, with empty fields where
>>> > "none" would also be appropriate, that's probably what happened.  Check the
>>> > history on the way and see if you can backtrack what happened (fortunately,
>>> > the group involved here included a url to a github issue where they are
>>> > tracking what they're doing).
>>> >
>>> > Now I have 200 miles of Interstate to go back through and re-check.
>>> >
>>> > --jack
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Talk-us mailing list
>>> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>> >
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160825/5c828294/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list