[Tagging] Cashless/Electronic tolling — toll by plate and non-plaza toll points

[Albert Pundt]

There seems to be a bit of a hole in toll road tagging. It seems the
convention for electronic toll gantries such as this
<https://goo.gl/maps/7R6ZzqAa7P32> is to either tag them with
barrier=toll_booth and payment:cash=no along with payment:=yes, or to having nothing at all and simply tagging the road with
toll=yes as normal, leaving out any information about payment types.

Perhaps there should be a new tag for these situations, such as
highway=toll_point, along with payment:toll_by_plate=yes,
payment:license_plate=yes, or anything else that gets the point across
while fitting in with existing OSM tagging conventions.

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

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Albert Pundt]

lanes:forward and lanes:backward is definitely correct here. No need to
make a whole new tag for it, and I really don't see how it's too tedious to
map this way (plus adding something like hgv:lanes:forward=no|designated
for the situation).

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 11:12 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Kevin wrote:
> > lanes:forward=* and lanes:backward=* is the best that I've found so
> >far to describe truck climbing lanes and similar features. They don't
> >appear in your image to be grade-separated, so they don't need to be
> >separate ways - one way for each section of the road, with appropriate
> >lanes:forward and lanes:backward appears to describe what's on the ground.
>
> That's what I had been doing previously and I know this would be "correct"
> but it's so tedious to split and classify the highway lanes. I was looking
> for a shorter, easier method.
>
> Warin suggests passing_lane but I'm not wanting to start pushing
> another new tag out there. Even that tagging scenario will require
> additional tags (e.g., direction) to distinguish such a passing_lane from
> the other lanes, or one would have to draw a separate "lane" the way I did
> it in the example.
>
> I noticed a comment in another thread about the old directive "don't map
> for the renderer". The poster suggests that we must either map for the
> renderer in cases where routing is concerned so that our work is useful
> somewhere down the line, or else convince someone to provide routing
> support. Does anyone know if any of the more popular applications consider
> the "passing_place" or "passing_places" tags when determining routing?
>
> Thanks for the responses,
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:55 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/08/18 10:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> > I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts
>> > consisting of a lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road
>> > so that slow moving vehicles can pull aside to allow following
>> > vehicles to pass. The best I can come up with is the tag
>> > highway=passing_place but strangely it applies only to nodes. I'm
>> > looking for examples from the real world similar to the one in this
>> > JOSM screenshot. I've selected both the passing lanes to color them
>> > red so you can see them.
>> >
>> Passing place .. I know them from Scotland - on a single lane road (two
>> way) if;
>> you come up behind a slow moving vehicle they are supposed to pull in to
>> the next 'passing place' and let you by,
>> you see an oncoming vehicle you are supposed to pull into the next
>> passing place .. unless the oncoming vehicle gets into one.
>>
>> Of course the actual road rules may be different from my observations ..
>> but for a practical perspective that is the behaviour I have observed.
>>
>> Passing places have barely enough room for one vehicle towing a caravan.
>> They are not that long. And you actually have to come to a complete stop
>> in them .. too short to do anything else.
>> I have followed a slow moving vehicle for some distance .. going by a
>> few 'passing places' with no pulling over.
>> And I have come across oncoming vehicles where I have pulled off the
>> road risking getting bogged as there were no convent passing places
>> available.
>>
>> > I had been using a variable number of lanes to describe the situation
>> > but these two passing_places are offset making using the lanes tags
>> > cumbersome to apply, 4 separate pieces, lanes going in different
>> > directions, oneway sections, etc. According to the Wiki, the
>> > passing_place tag is to be used only on nodes.
>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place) Why
>> > this should be so, I do not understand.
>> >
>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4g4t7mk6e4161l/passing_place.jpg?dl=0
>> >
>> > What alternatives do I have?
>>
>> Make a new tag.
>> passing_lane?
>>
>> In some instances here the traffic is directed into the side lanes, with
>> one centre land for passing...
>> a danger here is with opposing traffic where opposing people want to pass.
>> I take the chicken view - if there is opposing traffic that I cannot see
>> around then I will not take that centre lane.
>> This centre lane might also be termed a 'passing lane'.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
—Albert Pundt
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Bannered/Special routes (Business, Alternate, etc.) in ref tags

[Albert Pundt]

Sometimes bannered routes like business and alternate routes are tagged
with, for example, ref=US 1 Business, spelling it out fully, and other
times they abbreviate it, e.g. ref=US 1 Alt. Which is considered the best
practice? We already abbreviate the US, I, etc., so it's not a stretch to
abbreviate the banner word as well. And while we shouldn't tag only for the
renderer, it also has the advantage of not being too long for the current
Carto style.

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

[Tagging] Railways along streets

[Albert Pundt]

What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the street
intersections to be mapped? For example, this street
 in Lewistown, PA has a freight line
running along the middle. Should it be mapped as two overlapping ways, as
that example is currently, or should they be drawn as one way with all the
highway and railway tags on it?

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

[Albert Pundt]

Ah, yes, that makes sense. I tried searching various terms but it seems I
missed this page... Thanks!

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> highway=emergency_bay
>
> On 31 Dec 2017 3:53 a.m., "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm mapped these as highway=service, interested to hear if anyone has been
> using a different tag, possibly combined with service=?
>
> On 31 Dec. 2017 1:45 pm, "Albert Pundt" <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, that's a truck escape ramp, which serves a totally different purpose
>> (runaway truck vs. breakdowns and other reasons to stop), and would if
>> anything be a more dangerous place to pull off than elsewhere on the
>> shoulder, since runaway trucks coming down from a hill are expected to be
>> able to just barrel right onto one at any time.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could be http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape
>>>
>>> On 31 Dec. 2017 1:36 pm, "Albert Pundt" <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How are emergency pull-offs <https://goo.gl/maps/wvwtpQ4e9L92>
>>>> generally mapped? I can't find anything on the wiki, so they're either have
>>>> no agreed-upon tag, or it's done with some British/European term I don't
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> —Albert
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> —Albert
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

[Albert Pundt]

No, that's a truck escape ramp, which serves a totally different purpose
(runaway truck vs. breakdowns and other reasons to stop), and would if
anything be a more dangerous place to pull off than elsewhere on the
shoulder, since runaway trucks coming down from a hill are expected to be
able to just barrel right onto one at any time.

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Could be http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape
>
> On 31 Dec. 2017 1:36 pm, "Albert Pundt" <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How are emergency pull-offs <https://goo.gl/maps/wvwtpQ4e9L92> generally
>> mapped? I can't find anything on the wiki, so they're either have no
>> agreed-upon tag, or it's done with some British/European term I don't know.
>>
>> —Albert
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


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

[Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

[Albert Pundt]

How are emergency pull-offs  generally
mapped? I can't find anything on the wiki, so they're either have no
agreed-upon tag, or it's done with some British/European term I don't know.

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

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signals:lanes? (specific signal types for certain lanes)

[Albert Pundt]

The situation might not be common, but applying the :lanes methodology to
the key traffic_signals is just a logical extension of existing conventions.

I wasn't aware traffic_signals:continuous_green was so uncommon; I just
noticed it documented on the wiki and figured it must be at least somewhat
recognized, though I'm sure there's occasionally dubious tagging methods
that sometimes get added.

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 5:04 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
>> I will not discuss here if continuous_green would be a realistic value
>> with full possibilities in a future. But according to taginfo [1] there are
>> only 6 nodes around the world.
>> Also I am asking myself: if continuous_green is continuous green
>> really...is it usefull for the map? (because there is no action here, it
>> would be a traffic light, a painting, or some big commercial ad pannel in
>> the middle of the highway).
>>
>> In this case I think it would be more useful and accurate to separate the
>> left lane a couple of meters before it really does and put a traffic signal
>> for this new way with one lane that turns left. I think it would be
>> unusefull to put a traffic signal on the other way with continuous green.
>>
>
> Only similar situation I can think of was where the west end of US 30
> BYPASS met US 30 at the northwest ramp of the St. John Bridge in Portland
> until sometime around 2005.  The arrangement was such that all three
> eastbound lanes of US 30 had a traffic light (two general access lanes and
> a bicycle lane.  Westbound, the two left lanes had a full signal (a general
> access left turn lane and a general access through lane), then there was a
> set of no-lane-change stripes to the right of that, then a general access
> through lane with a permanent green through arrow, and a bicycle lane with
> a permanent green through arrow.
>
> US 30 was then (and still is now) a single carriageway with no separation
> at that location; wouldn't be accurate to add a median where there isn't one
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


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

[Tagging] opening_hours for public transport routes?

[Albert Pundt]

Is it common practice to represent the starts/ends of public transport
route schedules with the opening_hours tag? For example, Red Rose Transit
Route 1 in Lancaster, PA uses this

schedule. The leg going out to Park City Mall only starts on weekdays at
6:50; in the 45 mins before then, the bus just turns around on a different
street back toward downtown. I would guess that the best way to map this
would be have two route variants with the appropriate opening_hours tag,
which are united by a route_master relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Unsigned segments of signed routes - US 19 Truck (Pittsburgh)

[Albert Pundt]

A while ago I asked about the best way to handle an unsigned segment of a
signed route. Clearly the ways themselves would be given unsigned_ref=XYZ,
however it's the route relation that gets fuzzy. I don't think the
discussion really went anywhere definitively

I don't know if most routers derive route information from relations,
however we certainly seem to be moving in that direction. The unsigned_ref
tag is perfectly valid in a relation, however that would apply to the
*entire* route. We can't just opt for the role "unsigned" either, since
that makes it impossible to use forward/backward/north/south/etc. roles.

Consider US 19 Truck in Pittsburgh. It starts in Mt. Lebanon, running along
Liberty Avenue to PA 51. It then turns onto PA 51 until it meets the
I-376/US 19/PA 51 interchange at the south portal of the Fort Pitt Tunnel.
Here the signage stops, however a sign directs drivers to follow I-279 to
continue on 19 Truck. Once out of the tunnel on the north end, it follows
I-279 to the McKnight Road exit, where signage resumes. The route then
turns onto McKnight Road, running along that to its end at US 19 in
McCandless Township.

Presently there are two route relations for this route. One for both signed
segments, with a gap in the middle. The other is for the route as a whole,
including the unsigned segment in the middle. I suggest changing it up.
Have one relation for each of the three segments: the south signed segment,
the middle unsigned segment, and the north signed segment. They would then
be unified by a super relation, much like the ones that unify the relations
for Interstates and US routes in each state. How would this be as a way of
handling this?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to map public transport routes that start and end at the same place and overlap themselves?

[Albert Pundt]

I'm in Lancaster, PA right now and would like to add the Red Rose Transit
 bus lines to OSM. The network is made up of
six "City" lines, serving destinations close to the city, and 11 "County"
lines, which are radial routes to nearby towns with stops along the way.
(An interactive map of each route can be found here
.) What I'm confused about
is how to properly map the relations of the City routes based on the
information in the wiki page
.

The page says that each direction of the route should be a separate
relation. For the County routes such as Route 10/Lititz
,
this is easy (though I'm still figuring out how the system's forks work).
Since the Queen St Station is the hub of the entire network and serves as
the starting point for most of the routes, I'd have a relation for the
outbound direction that starts there and ends at Lititz, and another
starting and Lititz and ending at Queen St Station.

However, the City routes aren't so simple. All of them are effectively
loops that start and end at the same place, but have significant overlap
with itself in the other direction. For most such as Route 1/Park City A SE
,
they start at Queen St, go out toward one destination, come back to the
other side of town to a different destination, then come back toward Queen
St. It effectively makes a very misshapen figure 8. Neither far end of it
really serves as a terminal, but rather a prominent station, of which there
are several along every route.

What's the best way to map something like this, where the beginning and end
are the same place, making it a one-way loop that overlaps itself? I
suppose it all boils down to how to deal with this kind of situation:
[image: Inline image 1]
--Albert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Names containing abbreviations that are the official name

[Albert Pundt]

I know abbreviated names are frowned upon in OSM, but what about places
like towns where the abbreviation is part of the official name? For
example, Mt. Lebanon Township in Allegheny County, PA (near Pittsburgh). It
is officially, in all government documents, named "Mt. Lebanon" (though the
postal service continues to use its original official name Mount Lebanon),
but OSM guidelines would have it mapped as "Mount Lebanon" as it is
currently mapped.

Presumably cases like these still follow the OSM guideline? Perhaps
"official_name=Mt. Lebanon Township" should be used as well?

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

[Tagging] Unsigned portions of signed routes

[Albert Pundt]

How are unsigned segments of signed routes supposed to be mapped
relation-wise? For example, PA 235 in Perry County, PA has a short unsigned
concurrency with PA 17 going down into Liverpool, where both routes end at
US 11/15. However, 235 signage stops where it first intersects PA 17.
Obviously the segment of 17 should be given the "unsigned_ref=PA 235" tag,
but what about the relation? Routing software that relies on relations
would probably assume 235 is signed here, so what's the proper way to deal
with this? Create a separate relation for the unsigned portion? Just don't
add the PA 235 relation to 17 at all?

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

[Tagging] unclassified_link and residential_link

[Albert Pundt]

Why exactly is there no established support for highway=residential_link
and unclassified_link? Though not very common, occasionally these are
needed, and there doesn't seem to be any common solution other than simply
mapping the link as plain unclassified or residential. Has nobody proposed
these tags?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?

[Albert Pundt]

For trams/trolleys running along a street, is it necessary to have
railway=level_crossing at every cross street? It seems strange considering
that the entire street is one big level crossing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Pennsylvania colored Interstate detour routes

[Albert Pundt]

So if I use, for example, colour=blue in the relation, rather than have
ref=Blue, I would have "name=I XX Blue Detour"?

--Roadsguy

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Topographe Fou <letopographe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In your case I would probably also consider to add something like
> colour=green/yellow/... on the detour relation.
>
> LeTopographeFou
> *De:* ba...@ursamundi.org
> *Envoyé:* 30 mars 2017 2:31 PM
> *À:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Répondre à:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Objet:* Re: [Tagging] Pennsylvania colored Interstate detour routes
>
> Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Ddetour
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is there an established way of mapping detour routes such as
>> Pennsylvania's colored Interstate detours, as seen in this picture
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PA_363_shields_on_Egypt_Road.jpg>? I
>> would think it would be as simple as using route relations with
>> route=detour, ref=Green/Blue/Orange/etc, and detour=I 81/I 78/etc, but
>> before I go and add these I want to know whether these should be mapped at
>> all, and if so, what standard practice is.
>>
>> --Roadsguy
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Pennsylvania colored Interstate detour routes

[Albert Pundt]

Is there an established way of mapping detour routes such as Pennsylvania's
colored Interstate detours, as seen in this picture
? I
would think it would be as simple as using route relations with
route=detour, ref=Green/Blue/Orange/etc, and detour=I 81/I 78/etc, but
before I go and add these I want to know whether these should be mapped at
all, and if so, what standard practice is.

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

[Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

[Albert Pundt]

The old_ref=* key seems to be used a lot for any previous designation of a
road, even decades before. Often a road will have had different
designations over the years. For example, I-676 in Philadelphia was
initially designated I-80S from 1957 to 1958, followed by I-895 from 1958
to 1960, I-76 from 1960 to 1974, and today I-676 since 1974. There's no
good way that I know of to represent all this.

Though previous designations aren't useful for most users, it can still
come in handy to map this data if someone wants to use OSM data to track a
former route, for example.

Ideally, a more detailed tag for I-676 would be something like this:

old_ref=1957-1958 I 80S;1958-1960 I 895;1960-1974 I 76

Would anyone else support such a proposal, or think it to be useful?

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

[Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

[Albert Pundt]

What is the best way to map freeway (and other road) stub ends such as this
? It's currently mapped with all of the
closed off roadway being tagged with highway=service and access=no, but
I've also seen highway=motorway (and -_link) and access=no used as well on
other stubs. highway=construction and construction=motorway are often used
as well, but this is misleading as most such stubs are for cancelled roads
that aren't under construction. Is there any consensus on what method to
use?

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

[Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Albert Pundt]

Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each way,
with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but not used for
anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this with just lanes=2
seems wrong since it fails to take into account the lane width separating
the two travel lanes, and since there is no raised physical divider, it
doesn't seem right to mark it as a dual-carriageway road either. I've seen
lanes=3 used along with lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that
seems like it might be confusing.

What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?

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

[Tagging] Exit list signs?

[Albert Pundt]

What's the best way to map signs like this
 on freeways/motorways that list exits
serving a particular area, including destinations, distances to the exits,
and exit numbers? Perhaps one destination_sign relation for each exit
listed, or is there a better way, if any at all?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] ref:forward and ref:backward?

[Albert Pundt]

Are ref:forward and ref:backward valid tags for use? Though only existing
in short, isolated instances, there are many segments of road where a route
only follows one direction of a way, and some where another route follows
only the other direction, such as at a complex route junction. Are
ref:forward and ref:backward an acceptable way to tag these situations, or
is tagging it as a full concurrency and relying on relation roles the only
way to go here?

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