Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[fly]

Am 27.02.2015 um 22:44 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> 2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly :
> 
>> Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes
>> within the lanes:-Tagging
>>
>> lanes=3
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=1
>> access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency
>> access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency
>>
> 
> To me it just does not feel right. I don't see a "lane" there...

Do you mean you see a difference between bay and lane or are both no
lanes at all.

>> All together I am not happy with the description of lanes=* and
>> lanes:*=* anymore. Where is it useful as we already do not count bicycle
>> lanes but do count exclusive bus or taxi lanes and even ones with access
>> forbidden but wide enough for motorized vehicles.
>>
> 
> The key lanes and its subkeys are a misconception par excellence, no doubt
> there.

+1

>> Would prefer to change lanes=* and lanes:*=* to be the numbers with
>> general access allowed and adding all additional lanes with access:lanes:
>>
> 
> I'm all in! Changing the meaning of a key that's used about 5 million times
> might get a little tricky though.

First, I need more information which software uses this tag atm and how
it is used/spread across the globe. Not sure how far lanes:-tagging is
spead so far either. Needs a separate thread.

>> lanes=2
>> lanes:forward=1
>> lanes:backward=1
>>
> 
> I wouldn't use lanes=2 in this example. 1+1=2

The wiki says to use lanes=* and at least one of lanes:backward/forward=*.

I usually add all if not 1+1=2 where only lanes=2 is needed but as
demonstration I tried to be exact as possible and rather include
unnecessary tags.


> access:lanes:forward=yes|no|no
>> access:lanes:backward=yes|no
>> bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated|no
>> bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes
>> bus:lanes:forward=yes|no|designated
>> bus:lanes:backward=yes|designated
>> taxi:lanes:backward=yes|yes
>>
> 
> That's an excellent example why the current access scheme sucks for this.
> traffic_designation:lanes:forward=none|bicycle|bus

Would work in this case.

> traffic_designation:lanes:backward=none|bicycle;taxi

traffic_designation:lanes:backward=none|bicycle;bus;taxi

Not the same, see below.

> Wouldn't that be A LOT easier?

But not fit real world as we loose the different access tags per mode.
Above example has a bus lane (blue sign) where taxi and bicycle is
allowed (additional white sign "frei").

Cheers fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[John Willis]

> On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jo  wrote:
> 
> Like those, but to me it doesn't feel right to draw a separate service way 
> for them. There is no division like between dual carriageways. It's merely 
> the road that becomes a bit wider, so the buses can get out of the way of the 
> other traffic.

That is a turnout. 

Maybe people are talking about something more... Separate(?) from the roadway? 
Some of the old tollways here in Japan used to have bus stops along them, so 
they had a small little area with an access road for the bus, separated by a 
median or hedge, that led to a bus stop accessible by pedestrians. The service 
raid reconnected to the tollway a few hundred meters up, allowing the bus not 
to have to exit the motorway to drop off and pickup people. 

Those have now closed, and they are merely used for emergency parking and have 
a call box. 

I understand that some (well, a lot) of turnouts have call boxes on popular, 
yet narrow roads, but the turnout is primarily used for passing. 
It sounds like these breakdown bays have larger areas or purpose built roads, 
kind of like a chain changing station. 

Or is everyone describing a turnout with a call box(emergency phone)?

Javbw
> 
> Drawing the platform as a separate way, or the cycleway that becomes detached 
> is not a problem, but indirect.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 2015-02-27 19:23 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
>> Bus bays like this?
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>> On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote:
>>> 
>>> I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a side 
>>> product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the 
>>> platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are cases 
>>> where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's not 
>>> really mapping the feature itself, of course. 
>>> 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664
>>> 
>>> For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the number of 
>>> such bays, that's totally useless. I know.
>>> 
>>> Jo
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
 
 2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,
 
 
 I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the highway), 
 although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging, I'd also 
 include them in area:highway but they are in no way amenity=parking in my 
 understanding. "parking" is different from "break-down" even if it might 
 look similar (car is not moving).
 
 cheers,
 Martin
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 27.02.2015 18:38, Jo wrote:
> I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a
> side product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing
> the platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are
> cases where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's
> not really mapping the feature itself, of course.

Is there a problem with mapping bus bays as a short section of bus-only
lane (with the :lanes syntax)? That's how I would do it.
Iirc the possibility of doing this was even used as an argument for
:lanes and against the turn lanes relations in the past.

Tobias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Jo]

Like those, but to me it doesn't feel right to draw a separate service way
for them. There is no division like between dual carriageways. It's merely
the road that becomes a bit wider, so the buses can get out of the way of
the other traffic.

Drawing the platform as a separate way, or the cycleway that becomes
detached is not a problem, but indirect.

Jo

2015-02-27 19:23 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

>  Bus bays like this?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote:
>
>  I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a
> side product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the
> platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are cases
> where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's not
> really mapping the feature itself, of course.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664
>
> For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the number of
> such bays, that's totally useless. I know.
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>>
>> 2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>>
>>> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the
>> highway), although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging,
>> I'd also include them in area:highway but they are in no way
>> amenity=parking in my understanding. "parking" is different from
>> "break-down" even if it might look similar (car is not moving).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Warin]

The bus bays and breakdown bays are short sections that exit from the 
nearest highway and return back to it, not too complex to tag as 
highway=service and service=bus_bay or breakdown_bay?


 Some breakdown bays have emergency telephones too.

I've not bothered with platform way here .. too many other things to do.

 On 28/02/2015 6:43 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Tagging lanes/bays as separate ways seems wrong. It ends in complex 
junctions where

every lane has its own highway=*.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.04570&mlon=19.92147#map=19/50.04570/19.92147
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/899988/6425360/dfbdf646-bf25-11e4-9aca-20b25eab450f.png

2015-02-27 19:23 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale >:


Bus bays like this?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422

On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote:


I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges
as a side product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting
to drawing the platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around
them, but there are cases where the cycleway goes straight
through them, as well and that's not really mapping the feature
itself, of course.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664

For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the
number of such bays, that's totally useless. I know.

Jo

2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:


2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt
mailto:bry...@obviously.com>>:

These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,



I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of
the highway), although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful
way of tagging, I'd also include them in area:highway but
they are in no way amenity=parking in my understanding.
"parking" is different from "break-down" even if it might
look similar (car is not moving).

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Tagging lanes/bays as separate ways seems wrong. It ends in complex
junctions where
every lane has its own highway=*.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.04570&mlon=19.92147#map=19/50.04570/19.92147
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/899988/6425360/dfbdf646-bf25-11e4-9aca-20b25eab450f.png

2015-02-27 19:23 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

>  Bus bays like this?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote:
>
>  I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a
> side product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the
> platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are cases
> where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's not
> really mapping the feature itself, of course.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664
>
> For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the number of
> such bays, that's totally useless. I know.
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>>
>> 2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>>
>>> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the
>> highway), although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging,
>> I'd also include them in area:highway but they are in no way
>> amenity=parking in my understanding. "parking" is different from
>> "break-down" even if it might look similar (car is not moving).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Vonwald]

Hi!

2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly :

> Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes
> within the lanes:-Tagging
>
> lanes=3
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=1
> access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency
> access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency
>

To me it just does not feel right. I don't see a "lane" there...



> All together I am not happy with the description of lanes=* and
> lanes:*=* anymore. Where is it useful as we already do not count bicycle
> lanes but do count exclusive bus or taxi lanes and even ones with access
> forbidden but wide enough for motorized vehicles.
>

The key lanes and its subkeys are a misconception par excellence, no doubt
there.



> Would prefer to change lanes=* and lanes:*=* to be the numbers with
> general access allowed and adding all additional lanes with access:lanes:
>

I'm all in! Changing the meaning of a key that's used about 5 million times
might get a little tricky though.



> lanes=2
> lanes:forward=1
> lanes:backward=1
>

I wouldn't use lanes=2 in this example. 1+1=2


access:lanes:forward=yes|no|no
> access:lanes:backward=yes|no
> bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated|no
> bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes
> bus:lanes:forward=yes|no|designated
> bus:lanes:backward=yes|designated
> taxi:lanes:backward=yes|yes
>

That's an excellent example why the current access scheme sucks for this.
traffic_designation:lanes:forward=none|bicycle|bus
traffic_designation:lanes:backward=none|bicycle;taxi

Wouldn't that be A LOT easier?

Best regards,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Colin Smale]

 

Bus bays like this? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287489422 

On 2015-02-27 18:38, Jo wrote: 

> I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a side 
> product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the 
> platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are cases 
> where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's not really 
> mapping the feature itself, of course. 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664 [1]
> 
> For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the number of 
> such bays, that's totally useless. I know.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> 2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking, 
> 
> I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the highway), 
> although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging, I'd also 
> include them in area:highway but they are in no way amenity=parking in my 
> understanding. "parking" is different from "break-down" even if it might look 
> similar (car is not moving).
> 
> cheers, 
> Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

 

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Jo]

I can't help but keep hoping that a way to tag bus bays emerges as a side
product of this discussion. At the moment I'm resorting to drawing the
platform way, the cycleway or the landuse around them, but there are cases
where the cycleway goes straight through them, as well and that's not
really mapping the feature itself, of course.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288901664

For somebody who'd, for example, want to make statistics on the number of
such bays, that's totally useless. I know.

Jo


2015-02-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,
>
>
>
> I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the highway),
> although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging, I'd also
> include them in area:highway but they are in no way amenity=parking in my
> understanding. "parking" is different from "break-down" even if it might
> look similar (car is not moving).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-27 17:33 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,



I agree on landuse=highway (because they are clearly part of the highway),
although that doesn't seem to be a very helpful way of tagging, I'd also
include them in area:highway but they are in no way amenity=parking in my
understanding. "parking" is different from "break-down" even if it might
look similar (car is not moving).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

These bays are, in a sense, very restricted amenity=parking,
or a non-lane landuse=highway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly :

> Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes
> within the lanes:-Tagging
>


IMHO not, these bays are no lanes, hence should not be tagged as lanes.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[fly]

Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes
within the lanes:-Tagging

lanes=3
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=1
access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency
access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency

All together I am not happy with the description of lanes=* and
lanes:*=* anymore. Where is it useful as we already do not count bicycle
lanes but do count exclusive bus or taxi lanes and even ones with access
forbidden but wide enough for motorized vehicles.

Would prefer to change lanes=* and lanes:*=* to be the numbers with
general access allowed and adding all additional lanes with access:lanes:

lanes=2
lanes:forward=1
lanes:backward=1
access:lanes:forward=yes|no|no
access:lanes:backward=yes|no
bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated|no
bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes
bus:lanes:forward=yes|no|designated
bus:lanes:backward=yes|designated
taxi:lanes:backward=yes|yes
width:lanes:forward=3|1.5|2.5
width:lanes:backward=3|3

Would be a road with forward a normal lane, a bicycle lane and either
bus bay or bus lane (depending on length) and backward a normal lane and
a bus lane with bicycle and taxi allowed.

Am 26.02.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> 2015-02-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 fly :
> 
>> Well, emergency=bay might interfere with access tagging and we should
>> probably use left/right as you will find them not only on dual carriage
>> roads.
>>
>> emergency_bay=both/left/right ?
>>
> 
> That seems reasonable to me. 
> 
>> How do we tag emergency lanes ?
>>
> 
> I asked that some time ago, but afaik there's no solution (yet).



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-02-25 19:56 GMT+01:00 Ole Nielsen :

> On 25/02/2015 16:41, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
>> I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I
>> thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for
>> the length of the bay - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's
>> obviously not the case and it is not possible with highway=emergency_bay.
>>
>> When tagged as node I lose the length. Tagging as separate way seem
>> counter-intuitive - there is no separate road. Tagging as area seems...
>> strange ;-)
>>
>
> Well, we already have the approved feature http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place for features of a very similar physical
> nature but for a different purpose. The consistent solution is to use
> highway=emergency_bay on nodes in the same way as for passing places.
>

Consistent, but missing details.



> And why do you want that kind of details? If it is tagged as emergency_bay
> you know it is big enough for a broken down vehicle. That is the only
> information you really need if you are having car problems.


We do not tag for broken cars ;-)



> And adding an attribute to a short section of highway just results in
> further (in my opinion unnecessary) fragmentation of highways.


There are many different opinions on that matter. If an attribute of the
road changes, I split.



> If you really want to add the length you could use maxlength=* for the
> maximum vehicle length fitting in the bay.


Why measure the length and add a tag instead of simply putting a tag along
the bay on the road? That seems a little bit too complicated to me.



> That would also be easier for data consumers to process.
>

Are you speaking for all data consumers?



Yesterdays solutions might not work tomorrow.

Best regards,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-02-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 fly :

> Well, emergency=bay might interfere with access tagging and we should
> probably use left/right as you will find them not only on dual carriage
> roads.
>
> emergency_bay=both/left/right ?
>

That seems reasonable to me.



> How do we tag emergency lanes ?
>

I asked that some time ago, but afaik there's no solution (yet).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Ole Nielsen]

On 25/02/2015 16:41, Martin Vonwald wrote:

I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I
thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for
the length of the bay - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's
obviously not the case and it is not possible with highway=emergency_bay.

When tagged as node I lose the length. Tagging as separate way seem
counter-intuitive - there is no separate road. Tagging as area seems...
strange ;-)


Well, we already have the approved feature 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place for 
features of a very similar physical nature but for a different purpose. 
The consistent solution is to use highway=emergency_bay on nodes in the 
same way as for passing places.


And why do you want that kind of details? If it is tagged as 
emergency_bay you know it is big enough for a broken down vehicle. That 
is the only information you really need if you are having car problems. 
And adding an attribute to a short section of highway just results in 
further (in my opinion unnecessary) fragmentation of highways. If you 
really want to add the length you could use maxlength=* for the maximum 
vehicle length fitting in the bay. That would also be easier for data 
consumers to process.


Ole

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[fly]

Am 25.02.2015 um 16:41 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> 2015-02-25 16:34 GMT+01:00 fly :
> 
>> So what do you have in mind ? Tagging them as additional tag on the way
>> with highway=*? Using lanes:-Tagging ?
>>
> 
> I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I
> thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for the
> length of the bay - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's obviously not
> the case and it is not possible with highway=emergency_bay.

Well, emergency=bay might interfere with access tagging and we should
probably use left/right as you will find them not only on dual carriage
roads.

emergency_bay=both/left/right ?

> When tagged as node I lose the length. Tagging as separate way seem
> counter-intuitive - there is no separate road. Tagging as area seems...
> strange ;-)

+1

How do we tag emergency lanes ?

At least in cases of lanes the position of the phone is also important.

Cheers fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-02-25 16:34 GMT+01:00 fly :

> So what do you have in mind ? Tagging them as additional tag on the way
> with highway=*? Using lanes:-Tagging ?
>

I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I
thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for the
length of the bay - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's obviously not
the case and it is not possible with highway=emergency_bay.

When tagged as node I lose the length. Tagging as separate way seem
counter-intuitive - there is no separate road. Tagging as area seems...
strange ;-)

Best regards,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[fly]

Am 25.02.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Hm...had a quick look how they are tagged and I'm not really convinced.
> They are tagged as area beside the road (without any connection) or as
> individual roads. In my opinion both does not fit well :-/

So what do you have in mind ? Tagging them as additional tag on the way
with highway=*? Using lanes:-Tagging ?

I use lanes:-Tagging for bus_bays by the way.

cu fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Volker Schmidt]

Here in Italy  they are tagged in some areas and as nodes:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/7SA

On 25 February 2015 at 16:19, Martin Vonwald  wrote:

> Hm...had a quick look how they are tagged and I'm not really convinced.
> They are tagged as area beside the road (without any connection) or as
> individual roads. In my opinion both does not fit well :-/
>
> Thanks anyway,
> Martin
>
>
> 2015-02-25 16:11 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency_bay
>>
>> On 25 February 2015 at 15:33, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2015-02-25 15:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>>>
 I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german:
 Pannenbucht), something like this: http://binged.it/1LCYpoM
 Couldn't find anything in the wiki or taginfo.

>>>
>>>
>>> could be something for the emergency key? Or highway.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Vonwald]

Hm...had a quick look how they are tagged and I'm not really convinced.
They are tagged as area beside the road (without any connection) or as
individual roads. In my opinion both does not fit well :-/

Thanks anyway,
Martin


2015-02-25 16:11 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency_bay
>
> On 25 February 2015 at 15:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2015-02-25 15:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>>
>>> I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german:
>>> Pannenbucht), something like this: http://binged.it/1LCYpoM
>>> Couldn't find anything in the wiki or taginfo.
>>>
>>
>>
>> could be something for the emergency key? Or highway.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Volker Schmidt]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency_bay

On 25 February 2015 at 15:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-02-25 15:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
>> I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german:
>> Pannenbucht), something like this: http://binged.it/1LCYpoM
>> Couldn't find anything in the wiki or taginfo.
>>
>
>
> could be something for the emergency key? Or highway.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-25 15:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :

> I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german:
> Pannenbucht), something like this: http://binged.it/1LCYpoM
> Couldn't find anything in the wiki or taginfo.
>


could be something for the emergency key? Or highway.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging