Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:50 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 23:33, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>> 30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>>
>> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon
>> lanes=n
>>
>> It is not used at all.
>>
>
> That's one potential problem disposed of.
>
> How about routers?  Although I'd expect them to be able to cope with a new
> tag
> lanes_whether_marked_or_unmarked=n with less difficulty than changes to
> standard carto.
>

 Osmand's working on access by lane already, and JOSM already handles this,
so counting bicycle lanes won't cause issues there.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 23:33, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n
>
> It is not used at all.
>

That's one potential problem disposed of.

How about routers?  Although I'd expect them to be able to cope with a new
tag
lanes_whether_marked_or_unmarked=n with less difficulty than changes to
standard carto.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n
>
It is not used at all.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:27, Paul Johnson  wrote:

Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard?
>

I'm not fighting against a good idea.  I agree that the current situation
is broken.  But I've
been on this list long enough to understand that there are problems in
changing the
status quo.

OSM is anarchic in nature.  In many ways, that is a good thing.  But it's
not conducive to
joined-up thinking.

And since when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none
> at all except for this specific thing?
>

I'm not against fixing the lanes problem.  I've supported similar changes
in the past.
And seen what happened to them.  The best I hope for these days is that
somebody will
figure out a way of getting a good idea implemented instead of running up
against the
same old obstacles.

Redefining lanes has no chance.  A replacement tag might have.  But you go
ahead and
try to redefine lanes, if you wish.  Good luck with that.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard?  And since
when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none at all
except for this specific thing?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:04 Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>  Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't
>> be fixed.
>>
>
> Yes, but modal verbs are tricky. :)  I agree it SHOULD be fixed, but that
> doesn't mean that it
> CAN be fixed.  And even if it CAN be fixed, that doesn't mean it WILL be
> fixed.
>
> Redefining lanes means we also need to re-examine all of them.  Some will
> be obvious
> from aerial imagery, some will need feet on the ground. And then we need
> to agree on
> an additional tag (which could just be a note, but with formal syntax) to
> show that the
> lanes tag has been used in a way that conforms to the new definition, or
> mappers are going
> to waste time checking the same roads many times.
>
> Better would be to come up with a new tag for it.  That way you know if
> the road has an old
> lanes=n tag or a new whatever=n tag and don't have to re-examine if it has
> the new tag.
> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon
> lanes=n (I don't
> know if it does or not) then the carto guys may completely ignore our
> nice, new
> whatever=n tag because they seem to have a strict rule about "no aliases"
> and they might
> consider whatever=n to be an alias of lanes=n.
>
> Oh, and you'd have to get editors and routers to support the new
> whatever=n tag, although
> that probably isn't an insurmountable problem.
>
> Don't hold your breath for a change.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson  wrote:

 Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't
> be fixed.
>

Yes, but modal verbs are tricky. :)  I agree it SHOULD be fixed, but that
doesn't mean that it
CAN be fixed.  And even if it CAN be fixed, that doesn't mean it WILL be
fixed.

Redefining lanes means we also need to re-examine all of them.  Some will
be obvious
from aerial imagery, some will need feet on the ground. And then we need to
agree on
an additional tag (which could just be a note, but with formal syntax) to
show that the
lanes tag has been used in a way that conforms to the new definition, or
mappers are going
to waste time checking the same roads many times.

Better would be to come up with a new tag for it.  That way you know if the
road has an old
lanes=n tag or a new whatever=n tag and don't have to re-examine if it has
the new tag.
However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n
(I don't
know if it does or not) then the carto guys may completely ignore our nice,
new
whatever=n tag because they seem to have a strict rule about "no aliases"
and they might
consider whatever=n to be an alias of lanes=n.

Oh, and you'd have to get editors and routers to support the new whatever=n
tag, although
that probably isn't an insurmountable problem.

Don't hold your breath for a change.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

Not really, no, you could easily Maproulette this for items tagged
cycleway=lane.  Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean
it shouldn't be fixed.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 13:24 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
> 30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> I don't see it as redefining lanes
>
> It is not changing that it would redefine
> meaning of this tag.
>
> So it would require survey of all
> places tagged with lanes tag so
> it is not going to happen.
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> I don't see it as redefining lanes 
>
It is not changing that it would redefine
meaning of this tag.

So it would require survey of all 
places tagged with lanes tag so
it is not going to happen.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick]

Also, the mention of that lanes key (should) only be used to denote the number 
of MARKED lanes was added in 2017 after a short discussion in the German forum 
about the same topic.

However, in this topic here on the ML, arguments were brought forth that made 
us get to a different conclusion (the one documented in the wiki, see recent 
change history) which is why I consider the decision reached in 2017 (to only 
include marked lanes) obsolete.

Tobias 

On July 30, 2019 1:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
>Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
>jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!
>>
>
>
>if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes
>(as
>it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked
>lanes.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick]

This topic again? We had this just a few weeks back and we actually reached to 
a conclusion that lanes=0 should NOT be used to denote that there are no marked 
lanes.

I believe I also documented that conclusion on the wiki, prompting here for 
review.

Tobias 

On July 30, 2019 1:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
>Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
>jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!
>>
>
>
>if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes
>(as
>it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked
>lanes.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never
should have been there in the first place.  Like whoever came up with the
current concept hates cyclists or something.

An analogous situation would be of someone decided ground floors don't
count.  Of course we'd fix that.  This isn't something that could not be
rapidly resolved with a Maproulette, either.  Let's fix this glitch.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 08:12 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> This is something that desperately needs to change.
>
> Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?).
>
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

@martin this is a problem on what is accepted as a 1 lane because if you
are on a path there is also 1 lane but accepted size is less than what?

highway type need have a base width to appreciate or range values If you
have 1 or more lanes. This case is for normal gabarit what about motorcycle
| car or car | truck.

This is the problem we need defined if there is no marked. width can help
to appreciete that situation but by default there is 1 lane forword and 1
lane backward.
What is the base frame to define lanes in a model? car? truck? motorcycle?
specifics width?


Le mar. 30 juil. 2019 à 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

> Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
> jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>:
>
>> if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes
>> (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked
>> lanes.
>>
>> No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not.
>> This a routing comportement.
>>
>>
>
> maybe you just can't assume in your router that the OSM tag lanes
> describes what you expect for lanes?
>
>
>
>> You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural
>> France road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right
>> position on road.
>>
>
>
> Sorry for being ambiguous, I was referring to the wiki definition of the
> tag lanes. I agree that there can be lanes without lane markings,
> observable lanes. I have to deal with the same situation in Italy.
> Basically what I am doing is adding lanes=2 if there are 2 lanes, even if
> they are not marked. ;-)
> Interestingly, one of those roads I was thinking of, just has gotten (or
> renewed) lane markings. It may often be a maintenance question, markings
> being renewed in such long intervals, that there are years without markings
> but then they might eventually return.
>
> I'm even tempted sometimes to add lanes=1.5, although these cases are
> better described with a width.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>:

> if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as
> it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.
>
> No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not.
> This a routing comportement.
>
>

maybe you just can't assume in your router that the OSM tag lanes describes
what you expect for lanes?



> You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural France
> road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right position
> on road.
>


Sorry for being ambiguous, I was referring to the wiki definition of the
tag lanes. I agree that there can be lanes without lane markings,
observable lanes. I have to deal with the same situation in Italy.
Basically what I am doing is adding lanes=2 if there are 2 lanes, even if
they are not marked. ;-)
Interestingly, one of those roads I was thinking of, just has gotten (or
renewed) lane markings. It may often be a maintenance question, markings
being renewed in such long intervals, that there are years without markings
but then they might eventually return.

I'm even tempted sometimes to add lanes=1.5, although these cases are
better described with a width.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> This is something that desperately needs to change. 
>
Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?).

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

I, for one, consider not including bicycle lanes to be a harmful
shortcoming.  It tells you nothing about where, how many or what turn
restrictions apply to the bicycle lanes, all because bicycle lanes don't
count because reasons.  It also means lane guidance where bicycle lanes
exist will automatically be off by a lane and makes it useless for
cyclists, who need lane information more given relative difficulty changing
lanes.  This is something that desperately needs to change.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 06:27 Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Comments on the  Key:lanes 
> page
>
> 1) Heading "Narrow roads"
> The pageit proposes:
>
> width=4
> source:width=estimated
> This construct is used 5k times acording to TI.
> est_widh=x
> is used 40k times, and hence should be mentioned at least.
>
> Furthermore the established tag
> passing_places=yes
> which has its own wiki page and is used 7k times, is missing in the text
>
> 2) "Assumptions" table:
>
> The most frequent assumptions are missing, i.e. the case no lane count and no 
> indication of oneway/two-way.
>
> Also, highway=path should not have an assumed lane count, as it is normally 
> not suitable for car-width vehicles
>
> 3) Examples
>
> Bicycle lanes on cycleways
>
> Under the heading "Description" the page says
> "And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
> ...
> Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway 
> =lane 
>  for those."
>
> but, under  "Examples" the page shows a bidirectional stand-alone cycleway 
> with a dashed separator with "lanes=2".,
> a situation which I would have tagged highway=cycleway; oneway:bicycle=no, 
> but wihthout lanes=x tag
>
> 4) No line markings
>
> Under the heading "No line markings"
> the proposal, which is hidden there, i.e.lane_markings 
> =no
>  
> 
>  opens a potential can of worms.
> This tag is used 13 times in total. And there are zillions of roads that have 
> no markings in the real world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:32, Jérôme Seigneuret <
> jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road
>> marked or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual
>> road. Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database
>> (implicitly). This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work
>> with this database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition
>> to pass because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is
>> no condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point
>> you shall apply civility rules.
>> On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane.
>> there is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters
>> specificty for foot
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard  a écrit :
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors.
>>> Even if
>>> > unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not
>>> really a
>>> > road.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
>>> > locations. So ... what is it used for?
>>>
>>> this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement,
>> Jérôme Seigneuret
>> ___
>> 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] lanes = 0

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as
it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not.
This a routing comportement.

You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. This is the case in rural France
road. Legaly,  absence of marking is permit and you need fix right position
on road.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/bPYmBV9vGQr2CxoSIKGfRw this is 2 lanes
departmental road. In fact in some routing tools if there is no lane there
is no road. A lane is not in relation to road marking.

Same remark as Paul

Le mar. 30 juil. 2019 à 13:33, Paul Allen  a écrit :

> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as
>> it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.
>>
>
> That's logical but not particularly useful.  Around here there are a lot
> of minor roads.  Some of
> them are only wide enough for one vehicle, so are unmarked.  By your logic
> that's lanes=0.
> Some of them are wide enough for two vehicles, but still unmarked.  By
> your logic that's
> also lanes=0.  For many of us, it's nice to know if an unmarked road is
> only wide enough
> for one vehicle (so you might have to back up to a passing place one or
> more times) or
> wide enough for two vehicles.  The presence or absence of marking can
> really only be
> used to infer the presence or absence of marking and nothing more.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as
> it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.
>

That's logical but not particularly useful.  Around here there are a lot of
minor roads.  Some of
them are only wide enough for one vehicle, so are unmarked.  By your logic
that's lanes=0.
Some of them are wide enough for two vehicles, but still unmarked.  By your
logic that's
also lanes=0.  For many of us, it's nice to know if an unmarked road is
only wide enough
for one vehicle (so you might have to back up to a passing place one or
more times) or
wide enough for two vehicles.  The presence or absence of marking can
really only be
used to infer the presence or absence of marking and nothing more.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Volker Schmidt]

Comments on the  Key:lanes 
page

1) Heading "Narrow roads"
The pageit proposes:

width=4
source:width=estimated
This construct is used 5k times acording to TI.
est_widh=x
is used 40k times, and hence should be mentioned at least.

Furthermore the established tag
passing_places=yes
which has its own wiki page and is used 7k times, is missing in the text

2) "Assumptions" table:

The most frequent assumptions are missing, i.e. the case no lane count
and no indication of oneway/two-way.

Also, highway=path should not have an assumed lane count, as it is
normally not suitable for car-width vehicles

3) Examples

Bicycle lanes on cycleways

Under the heading "Description" the page says
"And the following lanes should be *excluded*:
...
Bicycle lanes. Use the tag cycleway
=lane
 for those."

but, under  "Examples" the page shows a bidirectional stand-alone
cycleway with a dashed separator with "lanes=2".,
a situation which I would have tagged highway=cycleway;
oneway:bicycle=no, but wihthout lanes=x tag

4) No line markings

Under the heading "No line markings"
the proposal, which is hidden there, i.e.lane_markings
=no

opens a potential can of worms.
This tag is used 13 times in total. And there are zillions of roads
that have no markings in the real world.








On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:32, Jérôme Seigneuret 
wrote:

> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked
> or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road.
> Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly).
> This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this
> database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition to pass
> because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is no
> condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point you
> shall apply civility rules.
> On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane.
> there is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters
> specificty for foot
>
>
>
> Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard  a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even
>> if
>> > unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really
>> a
>> > road.
>> >
>> >
>> > But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
>> > locations. So ... what is it used for?
>>
>> this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement,
> Jérôme Seigneuret
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret <
jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>:

> Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense!
>


if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as
it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked
or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road.
Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly).
This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this
database. Oneway=reversible is an other way. This is a condition to pass
because circulation work with conditional traffic_sign. If there is no
condtional that can be lane=1 and if you twice to arrived in this point you
shall apply civility rules.
On area there is no represation of lane. all area is defaut one lane. there
is no direction that is the problem to use it with routing parameters
specificty for foot



Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 00:31, Richard  a écrit :

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even
> if
> > unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a
> > road.
> >
> >
> > But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
> > locations. So ... what is it used for?
>
> this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Richard]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if
> unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a
> road.
> 
> 
> But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
> locations. So ... what is it used for?

this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible 

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:09 AM yo paseopor  wrote:

>  Also when they are a passable, two way road?
> BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial
> Page 50
>  Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada,
> delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga una
> anchura suficiente para permitir la circulación de una fila de automóviles
> que no sean motocicletas.
>
>  It is the place of the road , limited or not by marks , that has
> sufficient width to fit a row of motor vehicles (not motorcycles).
> In a road, if you can fit a row of motor vehicles, then , in Spain,  it is
> a lane.
>
> So...
> lane=1
> oneway=no
> could be possible
>

Yes, and that's actually already a thing.  It looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-track_road  Extremely common in
national forests in the US.  Somewhat unusual but not unheard of on
particularly rural highways in the US and Canada (BC 17 between Victoria
and Port Renfrew comes to mind offhand as having quite a few sections where
it goes down to a single lane for both directions).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.06.2019 um 13:57 schrieb Nita S. :
> 
> Some roads have formal lane markings ( in which case the number of lanes will 
> be obvious) and other road types have informal (i.e. none) lane markings.


even with markings it is not always clear, I know places with unidirectional 
traffic and one marked lane but effectively space for 2 small cars (plus a 
shoulder which is sometimes used despite it is not legally possible) , so that 
there is frequent overtaking. Not comparable to one true lane.


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 6/24/19, yo paseopor  wrote:

> BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial
> Page 50
>  Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada,
> delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga una
> anchura suficiente para permitir la circulación de una fila de automóviles
> que no sean motocicletas.

Here's my translation, FWIW

"Lane. Lengthwise strip into which a roadway may be subdivided,
whether or not delineated by longitudinal road markings, as long as it
is wide enough to allow the flow of a queue of automobiles, other than
motorcycles."

So in Spain a lane is a concept of a linear part of a road which is
wide enough to be used by a line of automobiles, whether or not it is
marked by painted lines. I believe this is a common definition in many
other countries as well.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[yo paseopor]

 Also when they are a passable, two way road?
BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial
Page 50
 Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada,
delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga una
anchura suficiente para permitir la circulación de una fila de automóviles
que no sean motocicletas.

 It is the place of the road , limited or not by marks , that has
sufficient width to fit a row of motor vehicles (not motorcycles).
In a road, if you can fit a row of motor vehicles, then , in Spain,  it is
a lane.

So...
lane=1
oneway=no
could be possible

Also if you have the width to fit a motor vehicle it is a lane so...

In a road lane=0 is not possible in Spain

Salut i carrils (Health and lanes)
yopaseopor

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:41 PM Allroads  wrote:

> So there are lanes and virtual lanes.
>
> We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately,
> whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no
> marking.
>
> Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set  marked = yes.
> (or else) to make the distinction.
> See wikipedia and else, there all marked.
>
> A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes!
> (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new
> tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law)
> To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear.
>
> What do you think of:
>
>
>
> lanes: virtual = (number),   lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag
> needed.
>
> The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a
> route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach.
>
> You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM,
> these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual
> lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the
> definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed.
> Problem solved.
>
>
>
>
>
> Quote: yo_paseopor
> In Spain is easy: when there is no marks =  lanes=1
>
> Also when they are a passable, two way road?
>
> When there are no marking there are no lanes.
> lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction.
>
> A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane
> (rijstrook)(law).
>
>
> Allroads.
>
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Nita S.]

Let's try looking at this from a different direction. All roads must have
the capacity to convey one vehicle width. Some roads have formal lane
markings ( in which case the number of lanes will be obvious) and other
road types have informal (i.e. none) lane markings. On the latter, the
number of lanes is somewhat variable, and may depend upon the road surface
type, the types of vehicles approaching, and recent precipitation ( which
could fill edges, and dynamically contract the width).

So maybe trying to put a finite number of lanes on an informal road
situation may be a long process that satisfies no one. On informal roads ,
width may be the only viable metric.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:41 AM Allroads  wrote:

> So there are lanes and virtual lanes.
>
> We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately,
> whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no
> marking.
>
> Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set  marked = yes.
> (or else) to make the distinction.
> See wikipedia and else, there all marked.
>
> A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes!
> (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new
> tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law)
> To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear.
>
> What do you think of:
>
>
>
> lanes: virtual = (number),   lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag
> needed.
>
> The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a
> route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach.
>
> You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM,
> these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual
> lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the
> definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed.
> Problem solved.
>
>
>
>
>
> Quote: yo_paseopor
> In Spain is easy: when there is no marks =  lanes=1
>
> Also when they are a passable, two way road?
>
> When there are no marking there are no lanes.
> lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction.
>
> A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane
> (rijstrook)(law).
>
>
> Allroads.
>
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Allroads]

So there are lanes and virtual lanes.

We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately, whether I 
am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no marking.

Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set  marked = yes. (or 
else) to make the distinction.
See wikipedia and else, there all marked. 

A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes!  (law). 
Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new 
tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law)
To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear.

What do you think of:



lanes: virtual = (number),   lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag 
needed.

The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a route 
line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach.

You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM, these 
lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual lanes was 
a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the definition unclear 
and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed.
Problem solved.





Quote: yo_paseopor
In Spain is easy: when there is no marks =  lanes=1

Also when they are a passable, two way road?

When there are no marking there are no lanes.
lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction.

A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane 
(rijstrook)(law).


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

That so doesn't work in the real world, though.  Residential streets are
typically about 35 feet wide curb to curb.  Is this lanes=4 or lanes=2?
Trick question, it's neither because parking is allowed on the curb on both
sides and the middle portion isn't wide enough to allow to cars to pass
side to side in the middle.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:02 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Paul Johnson  writes:
>
> >  In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of
> > lanes=*.
>
> Perhaps, but then data consumers have to figure how how many cars are
> supposed to be side by side.  That number really is local convention;
> one road I use is really not wide enough for 2, but people always do it.
> So I favor using the lanes tag to specify how many lanes are actually
> typically in use.  Then with width one can get the average width of
> those.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

>  In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of
> lanes=*.

Perhaps, but then data consumers have to figure how how many cars are
supposed to be side by side.  That number really is local convention;
one road I use is really not wide enough for 2, but people always do it.
So I favor using the lanes tag to specify how many lanes are actually
typically in use.  Then with width one can get the average width of
those.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Nita S.]

Without digging deeply into width, presumably it measured in meters ? I can
see value there, but the width has to be an average, and the cleared area
for passage of vehicles.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:12 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:49 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> Joseph Eisenberg  writes:
>>
>> > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
>> > is not reliable in all of the world.
>> >
>> > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
>> > painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
>> > instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
>> > year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
>> > markings are no longer visible.
>>
>> It is not just about developing countries.  In my part of the US, there
>> are many roads whicha have either no paint at all, or have white lines
>> at the edges (so you can see where the edges are at night).   Almost all
>> of these roads are wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, but not
>> really wider than that.  This seems really obviously one lane in each
>> direction, and everybody who drives here gets that.  There is a legal
>> requirement to stay on the right of the imaginary center lane (absent a
>> reason such as passing a pedestrian); you can be cited for "operating
>> left of center" entire reasonably on a two-cars-wide road with no
>> markings -- but that will only happen if you are left of center
>> egregiously or on a blind curve or rise.
>>
>>
>> So that's a long way of saying that "lane markings" should not be
>> required for lanes=N; it is enough to observe the local conventions
>
>
>  In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of
> lanes=*.
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:49 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Joseph Eisenberg  writes:
>
> > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> > is not reliable in all of the world.
> >
> > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> > painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> > instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> > year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> > markings are no longer visible.
>
> It is not just about developing countries.  In my part of the US, there
> are many roads whicha have either no paint at all, or have white lines
> at the edges (so you can see where the edges are at night).   Almost all
> of these roads are wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, but not
> really wider than that.  This seems really obviously one lane in each
> direction, and everybody who drives here gets that.  There is a legal
> requirement to stay on the right of the imaginary center lane (absent a
> reason such as passing a pedestrian); you can be cited for "operating
> left of center" entire reasonably on a two-cars-wide road with no
> markings -- but that will only happen if you are left of center
> egregiously or on a blind curve or rise.
>
>
> So that's a long way of saying that "lane markings" should not be
> required for lanes=N; it is enough to observe the local conventions


 In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of
lanes=*.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> is not reliable in all of the world.
>
> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> markings are no longer visible.

It is not just about developing countries.  In my part of the US, there
are many roads whicha have either no paint at all, or have white lines
at the edges (so you can see where the edges are at night).   Almost all
of these roads are wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, but not
really wider than that.  This seems really obviously one lane in each
direction, and everybody who drives here gets that.  There is a legal
requirement to stay on the right of the imaginary center lane (absent a
reason such as passing a pedestrian); you can be cited for "operating
left of center" entire reasonably on a two-cars-wide road with no
markings -- but that will only happen if you are left of center
egregiously or on a blind curve or rise.


So that's a long way of saying that "lane markings" should not be
required for lanes=N; it is enough to observe the local conventions.

I agree that a finer-grained tag that says if there are markings or not
is sensible.  But the most important thing is to describe how traffic
actually behaves.

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Warin]

On 16/06/19 22:53, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Okay, to wrap this up, I added this title in the wiki and referenced back to 
this discussion, advising to not use lanes=0/1.5/none to signify no lane 
markings but instead use something like lane_markings=no.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#No_lane_markings

---

Additionally, I noted that after a similar discussion about lanes=1.5 in the 
German forum in 2017, the wiki page was changed to stress that the lanes-key is 
for *marked* traffic lanes. The change was announced on the Talk page and the 
German forum discussion linked there.

I did not change the formulation back but only added the outcome of this 
discussion to that topic on the Talk page because I do not feel legitimated to 
do that as the 2017 wiki change was also done only after discussion in the 
community, same as now:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:lanes#No_centerline_-_one_or_two_lanes.3F


The community that decided that lanes must be marked in geography small and 
probably failed to consider the rest of the world.
Fine for them to set 'rules' locally but that looks to be causing problems in 
other parts of the world.
I have made comment on the discussion page.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:lanes#Marked_or_unmarked_lanes



[1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=627975#p627975

On 15/06/2019 18:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
is not reliable in all of the world.

In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
markings are no longer visible.

There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.

And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
the width was sufficient.

While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
"de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
where painted lane markings are not frequently used.



This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, 
not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many 
kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while they 
are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it isn’t 
pursued with high priority ;-)
I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be 
there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.

We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes 
marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t 
forgotten).

Cheers, Martin
___




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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[yo paseopor]

In Spain is easy: when there is no marks =  lanes=1
The lack of the mark lanes is the reason why when a Spaniard drives by Rome
thinks Italian people are crazy, because they overtake you in the same big
lane, but ONLY one lane (lane without marks). One lane= one car.
lane with no marks is =1 (driver's school book says that) so lane=0 would
be impossible and ununderstable for a Spaniard wherever in the World.

Cheers
Yopaseopor



On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:59 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> > is not reliable in all of the world.
> >
> > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> > painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> > instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> > year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> > markings are no longer visible.
> >
> > There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
> > or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
> > may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
> > road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
> >
> > And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
> > each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
> > the width was sufficient.
> >
> > While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
> > "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
> > where painted lane markings are not frequently used.
>
>
>
> This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as
> well, not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for
> many kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road
> while they are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having
> lanes, but it isn’t pursued with high priority ;-)
> I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be
> there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.
>
> We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes
> marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag
> wasn’t forgotten).
>
> 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] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick]

Okay, to wrap this up, I added this title in the wiki and referenced back to 
this discussion, advising to not use lanes=0/1.5/none to signify no lane 
markings but instead use something like lane_markings=no.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#No_lane_markings

---

Additionally, I noted that after a similar discussion about lanes=1.5 in the 
German forum in 2017, the wiki page was changed to stress that the lanes-key is 
for *marked* traffic lanes. The change was announced on the Talk page and the 
German forum discussion linked there.

I did not change the formulation back but only added the outcome of this 
discussion to that topic on the Talk page because I do not feel legitimated to 
do that as the 2017 wiki change was also done only after discussion in the 
community, same as now:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:lanes#No_centerline_-_one_or_two_lanes.3F

[1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=627975#p627975

On 15/06/2019 18:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>>
>> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
>> is not reliable in all of the world.
>>
>> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
>> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
>> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
>> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
>> markings are no longer visible.
>>
>> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
>> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
>> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
>> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
>>
>> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
>> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
>> the width was sufficient.
>>
>> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
>> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
>> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.
> 
> 
> 
> This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, 
> not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many 
> kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while 
> they are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it 
> isn’t pursued with high priority ;-)
> I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be 
> there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.
> 
> We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes 
> marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t 
> forgotten).
> 
> 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] lanes = 0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
> is not reliable in all of the world.
> 
> In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
> painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
> instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
> year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
> markings are no longer visible.
> 
> There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
> or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
> may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
> road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.
> 
> And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
> each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
> the width was sufficient.
> 
> While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
> "de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
> where painted lane markings are not frequently used.



This description is a perfect fit for the situation in central Italy as well, 
not having marked lanes can happen on 2+2 roads for years and for many 
kilometers. Often there are lane markings for some part of the road while they 
are missing on others. Generally they are aiming at having lanes, but it isn’t 
pursued with high priority ;-)
I can understand the argument that lanes have to be painted in order to be 
there, but it isn’t the reality I am observing.

We shouldn’t dismiss lane_markings=no as it can solve both cases: no lanes 
marked but lanes=n is set, and no lanes tag set (confirmation the tag wasn’t 
forgotten).

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[ael via Tagging]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:00:19AM +0200, Allroads wrote:
> First, the consensus in OSM is 

Sorry, but this thread is clear evidence that statement is false.
And existing mapping also contradicts it.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14 Jun 2019, 13:04 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> 1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative
>
I agree, this is a bit overcomplicated.
> 2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes 
> value if no markings are present (see ael's message). Adding "no" as a 
> possible value that is to be applied when no visual markings are present 
> would make a portion of the currently tagged lanes-tags wrong and thus would 
> be a redefinition of the lanes key.
>
Blocking lane tagging is a poor idea
> 3. lane_marking=no has of the proposed tags the least semantic similarity to 
> the lanes tag but on the other hand is used a few times already and is safe 
> for the "_" instead of the ":" what Warin suggested
>
Seems ok to me
> 4. lanes:mark...=no would maybe imply that lanes=X must be tagged as well?
>
I see no obligation that tagging this
would mean that tagging lanes tag is
obligatory.

Also seems ok to me.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Warin]

+1 with Joseph

OSM is world wide. What is suitable in one place may not work in another.

The use of the tags should follow local customs, the presence of lanes should 
be judged by local customs,

in Australia they are legally required to be marked for multi lane roads, a 
road with a lane in each direction does not require markings.

Elsewhere in the world they not be marked but used as multiple lanes.

Tagging the presence/absence of lane markings looks to be a requirement for 
some.

It could be done as a country wide default, this could ease concerns of some.

I have seen one instance of lane=0 to mean that the 'road' is not wide enough 
for one lane...
lane=0 is undocumented and has been taken to mean different things by different 
people.

To me, lane=0 has no true meaning and indicates a problem.




On 15/06/19 09:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
is not reliable in all of the world.

In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
markings are no longer visible.

There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.

And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
the width was sufficient.

While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
"de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
where painted lane markings are not frequently used.

On 6/15/19, Allroads  wrote:

First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when
there is are visual markings for lanes.
Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?

lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes,
lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.

If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero
is nothing.
I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1,
they told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no
lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, retagged them.

Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of
the road.
In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.

Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you
can use it in OSM. (lisence)
Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it.
To realign roads.
(A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).

Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is
always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.

lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a
possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or
lanes=0.


___
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] lanes = 0

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings
is not reliable in all of the world.

In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of
painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used
instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a
year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the
markings are no longer visible.

There are also sections of primary or trunk road that are at least 6
or 7 meters wide and freshly painted, but have not yet been marked and
may not be for a number of years. I tag these as lanes=2 because the
road is clearly wide enough for two lanes.

And here in town the main road was recently marked with 2 lanes in
each direction, but before it already functioned as 4 lanes because
the width was sufficient.

While tagging the width is useful, I believe tagging the presence of
"de facto" lanes is reasonable in developing countries and places
where painted lane markings are not frequently used.

On 6/15/19, Allroads  wrote:
> First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when
> there is are visual markings for lanes.
> Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?
>
> lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes,
> lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.
>
> If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero
> is nothing.
> I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1,
> they told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no
> lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, retagged them.
>
> Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
> Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of
> the road.
> In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.
>
> Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you
> can use it in OSM. (lisence)
> Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it.
> To realign roads.
> (A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).
>
> Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
> Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is
> always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
> First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
> So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.
>
> lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a
> possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or
> lanes=0.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Allroads]

First, the consensus in OSM is, that only the tag key  lanes=* is used, when 
there is are visual markings for lanes.
Then the question is, are there lanes? Yes or no. How many?

lane_marking= no, we agreed (OSM), when no visual lanes there are no lanes, 
lane_marking, it is referring to lanes, that are not there, so useless tag.

If lanes=no is not right, lanes=0 zero means, that there are no lanes, zero is 
nothing.
I tagged a few , as you named two way road with no lane marking lanes=1, they 
told me that is wrong, I agree, it have no lanes/rijstroken/fahrstreifen, 
retagged them.

Width tag is way to go. For roads without lanes.
Estimation is difficult, maybe one day Mapillary can measure the width of the 
road.
In JOSM you can measure the width of a road, drag a line and see width.

Some countries, Goverment produce open data, look or agree with them if you can 
use it in OSM. (lisence)
Here a third party, https://bgtviewer.nl/ visualise the data. We can use it. To 
realign roads.
(A lot of the data is measured in, correct) We can not do better ;-).

Wider use of  lanes. We can not do that.
Just read all the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc. according to lanes, it is 
always lanes/rijstrook/fahrstreifen (images with markings)
First these must be rewritten, global accepted. This is not happening.
So OSM stays, lanes are a part of a road with markings.

lanes= is used for lanes, when there are no lanes, there should me a 
possibility to give a tag, lanes= is used, either it is lanes=no or lanes=0.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick via Tagging]

Ok so to recap. All fairly weak reasons (except 2) here, but let's find the 
best tag:

1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative

2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes 
value if no markings are present (see ael's message). Adding "no" as a possible 
value that is to be applied when no visual markings are present would make a 
portion of the currently tagged lanes-tags wrong and thus would be a 
redefinition of the lanes key.

3. lane_marking=no has of the proposed tags the least semantic similarity to 
the lanes tag but on the other hand is used a few times already and is safe for 
the "_" instead of the ":" what Warin suggested

4. lanes:mark...=no would maybe imply that lanes=X must be tagged as well?

On 13/06/2019 15:15, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???
> 
> 1. or lanes:marked=no? (mark_ed_ instead of mark_ing_)
> 
> Would be (more) consistent with the naming of opening_hours:signed, 
> collection_times:signed, (1k-2k usages each)
> 
> 2. or nolanes=yes?
> 
> Would be consistent with noname=yes, noaddress=yes, ...
> 
> 3. or lane_marking=no? I found this on taginfo, it has 90 usages. Personally, 
> I like either 1 or 2 better though.
> 
> Point 1 and your (Warin's) suggestion have the advantage that it semantically 
> refers to the lanes-key. Though on the other hand, would that imply that 
> lanes=X should always be tagged if lanes:marked=no is tagged?
> 
> Cheers
> Tobias
> 
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 12:46 +0100, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:09:26PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> > On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > 
> > I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that
> > situation???
> > 
> > lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are
> > marked or unmarked as demonstrated above.
> 
> +1
> 
> It had never occured to me that the lanes tag required markings: I
> had
> understood it to be mainly an aid for routing, algorithmic or manual.
> If it requires marking, then most of my own maping of lanes would
> need
> revision. And since I have no good way of estimating widths, I
> wouldn't
> know how to preserve the information with alternative tagging.
> 
In the UK a two way road of less than 4.5m will (usually) have no lane
markings. Locally you can assume that almost any rural road below
secondary will be too narrow to have lanes and there are a few
secondary roads that meet that criteria. And obviously bridges tend to
be narrower.

I tend to map these roads using the width tag.

Commonly a 4m road you can pass other cars comfortably, but have to
slow to pass larger vehicles, 3.5m then you are starting to think about
the timing to be at wider bits to pass oncoming traffic.

Where there are no lanes then the width tag allows routers to make an
informed choice, 4m is reasonable for a a car but not a good idea in a
truck unless it is to reach its destination. 

I am not sure if routers use this tag?

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Nita Rae Sanders]

lanes, at least around here, can be nebulous and variable. Most
hardtop/asphalt roads are 2-lanes (1 in each direction). Graded
limerock roads are unmarked in any way, and usually capable of two
vehicle squeezing past one another, except on a day like today. There
is so much accumulated water that they have effectively become single
lane, with cooperative waiting for oncoming traffic to pass you,
before you can proceed.

lanes=variable anyone ?

On 6/13/19, Allroads  wrote:
> A carriageway can have lanes or not.
> A lane is a part of a carriageway with visual markings.
>
> In Dutch law we have.
> rijbaan = roadway = fahrbahn
> and with visual marking, we have
> rijstrook = lane = fahrstreifen
> If there are no visual markings, there are no rijstroken / fahrstreifen /
> lanes.
>
> A two way roadway with no visual markings do not have lanes. lanes=no
> There could be lanes=yes, better is to give the number of lanes lanes=2 and
> set lanes:forward lanes:backward.
>
> Now, I do not set lanes=no, I like to, so that we can control, if on all
> roads lanes tags are set. To see, if there are data gaps.
> nolanes=yes is not logic for me.
> Are there lanes on a road?  Yes or No.  The answer is no, then the value
> must be, no,  so it must be lanes=no.
> You do not ask: Are there no lanes on the road? People have problems with
> such a questions, mixed answers, failure rate is higher.
> Negative question, we must avoid that!
> Therefore,  avoid nolanes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] lanes = 0

[Allroads]

A carriageway can have lanes or not.
A lane is a part of a carriageway with visual markings.

In Dutch law we have.
rijbaan = roadway = fahrbahn
and with visual marking, we have
rijstrook = lane = fahrstreifen
If there are no visual markings, there are no rijstroken / fahrstreifen / 
lanes.


A two way roadway with no visual markings do not have lanes. lanes=no
There could be lanes=yes, better is to give the number of lanes lanes=2 and 
set lanes:forward lanes:backward.


Now, I do not set lanes=no, I like to, so that we can control, if on all 
roads lanes tags are set. To see, if there are data gaps.

nolanes=yes is not logic for me.
Are there lanes on a road?  Yes or No.  The answer is no, then the value 
must be, no,  so it must be lanes=no.
You do not ask: Are there no lanes on the road? People have problems with 
such a questions, mixed answers, failure rate is higher.

Negative question, we must avoid that!
Therefore,  avoid nolanes.







___
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] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick]

> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???

1. or lanes:marked=no? (mark_ed_ instead of mark_ing_)

Would be (more) consistent with the naming of opening_hours:signed, 
collection_times:signed, (1k-2k usages each)

2. or nolanes=yes?

Would be consistent with noname=yes, noaddress=yes, ...

3. or lane_marking=no? I found this on taginfo, it has 90 usages. Personally, I 
like either 1 or 2 better though.

Point 1 and your (Warin's) suggestion have the advantage that it semantically 
refers to the lanes-key. Though on the other hand, would that imply that 
lanes=X should always be tagged if lanes:marked=no is tagged?

Cheers
Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:10 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between
> unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even
> slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more
> explicit. But since this does not exist (yet), lanes=0 would do as well in
> my opinion because it also reads as "zero (=no) lanes".
>
> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that
> situation???
>
> lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or
> unmarked as demonstrated above.


 I agree with Warin on this, with the extension that we should be counting
all lanes, not some lanes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:09:26PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 
> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???
> 
> lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or 
> unmarked as demonstrated above.

+1

It had never occured to me that the lanes tag required markings: I had
understood it to be mainly an aid for routing, algorithmic or manual.
If it requires marking, then most of my own maping of lanes would need
revision. And since I have no good way of estimating widths, I wouldn't
know how to preserve the information with alternative tagging.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Warin]

On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one 
lane in either direction.

I am kind of a fan of lanes=0, denoting that there are no marked lanes. Here is 
why:

a. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=2, this situation cannot 
be distinguished from a road with 2 lanes
b. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=1, this situation cannot 
be distinguished from a road with 1 marked lane (a oneway road?)

So, in both these cases, the tagging is not explicit.

But it is important to be able to make the distinction. Some reasons:

1. Verifiability: Clearly, "on the ground", a road with 2 lanes looks different 
from a road with no lanes. A famous example for even a very broad road that has no lanes 
is Place Charles-de-Gaulle in Paris [1]

2. Legal implications: As far as I know, there are legal implications for roads 
with no lanes. Depends on the country of course, two examples that come to my 
mind:

   2.1 In Germany, (afaik) it has implications when passing obstacles. If there are 
marked lanes, you can only cross into the other lane when it is free, while if there are 
no marked lanes, whoever reaches the obstacle first may pass first, independent on whose 
"side" it is

   2.2 In China, the default speed limit if nothing is signed in towns is 50 
km/h but on urban roads without a center line, it's 30 km/h [2]

3. Fuzzy/Implicit implications: Software may want to treat roads with unmarked 
lanes differently from ones that are marked. A few examples:

   3.1 StreetComplete may want to ask surveyors to measure a road width in 
meters only for unmarked roads because they are likely very thin and the 
traffic throughput is not clear through the lane count

   3.2 router software may want to slightly prefer roads with lanes>=2 over 
unmarked roads and/or calculate a virtual lane count from the given width, if any 
- especially if the maxspeed-tag is missing

   3.3 map rendering software may want to render roads as they appear in 
reality. F4Map already does this rudimentary [3]

---

Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between unmarked and marked 
but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even slightly favor a tag like 
nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more explicit. But since this does not exist 
(yet), lanes=0 would do as well in my opinion because it also reads as "zero (=no) 
lanes".


I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???

lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or 
unmarked as demonstrated above.



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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Tobias Zwick]

> Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one 
> lane in either direction.

I am kind of a fan of lanes=0, denoting that there are no marked lanes. Here is 
why:

a. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=2, this situation cannot 
be distinguished from a road with 2 lanes
b. if a road with no lane marking is tagged as lanes=1, this situation cannot 
be distinguished from a road with 1 marked lane (a oneway road?)

So, in both these cases, the tagging is not explicit.

But it is important to be able to make the distinction. Some reasons:

1. Verifiability: Clearly, "on the ground", a road with 2 lanes looks different 
from a road with no lanes. A famous example for even a very broad road that has 
no lanes is Place Charles-de-Gaulle in Paris [1]

2. Legal implications: As far as I know, there are legal implications for roads 
with no lanes. Depends on the country of course, two examples that come to my 
mind:

  2.1 In Germany, (afaik) it has implications when passing obstacles. If there 
are marked lanes, you can only cross into the other lane when it is free, while 
if there are no marked lanes, whoever reaches the obstacle first may pass 
first, independent on whose "side" it is

  2.2 In China, the default speed limit if nothing is signed in towns is 50 
km/h but on urban roads without a center line, it's 30 km/h [2]

3. Fuzzy/Implicit implications: Software may want to treat roads with unmarked 
lanes differently from ones that are marked. A few examples:

  3.1 StreetComplete may want to ask surveyors to measure a road width in 
meters only for unmarked roads because they are likely very thin and the 
traffic throughput is not clear through the lane count 

  3.2 router software may want to slightly prefer roads with lanes>=2 over 
unmarked roads and/or calculate a virtual lane count from the given width, if 
any - especially if the maxspeed-tag is missing

  3.3 map rendering software may want to render roads as they appear in 
reality. F4Map already does this rudimentary [3]

---

Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between unmarked and 
marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even slightly favor a 
tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more explicit. But since 
this does not exist (yet), lanes=0 would do as well in my opinion because it 
also reads as "zero (=no) lanes".

Cheers
Tobias

[1] see 
https://www.google.de/maps/@48.8734657,2.2942766,3a,75y,117.5h,85.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ofE9aRZMKKfWiiB2SiOrQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4ofE9aRZMKKfWiiB2SiOrQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D166.38968%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[2] see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Default_speed_limits

[3] see https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=53.5832254=9.9338489=19


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Warin]

On 13/06/19 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 13. Jun 2019, at 04:59, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if 
unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a road.


according to the current definition requiring markings for a lane, one could 
read lanes=0 meaning no marked lanes.


Here, legally, if there are no lane makings then it is considered to have one 
lane in either direction.



Personally I would prefer a more inclusive definition which requires for lanes 
to be recognizable, which could be either through lane markings or through 
traffic observation (if the vehicles drive in two lanes it is a 2-lane road 
also in absence of road markings).


That may encourage illegal activity here.


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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jun 2019, at 04:59, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if 
> unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a 
> road.


according to the current definition requiring markings for a lane, one could 
read lanes=0 meaning no marked lanes. 

Personally I would prefer a more inclusive definition which requires for lanes 
to be recognizable, which could be either through lane markings or through 
traffic observation (if the vehicles drive in two lanes it is a 2-lane road 
also in absence of road markings).

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 13:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even
> if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not
> really a road.
>
>
> But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
> locations. So ... what is it used for?
>

I've just had a look at several at random on Overpass & all of them were
wrong, with the possible exception of a country highway=unclassified with a
note "overgrown by hedgerows"!

Thanks

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

[Tagging] lanes = 0

[Warin]

Hi,


There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even 
if unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not 
really a road.



But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various 
locations. So ... what is it used for?




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