Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[yo paseopor]

Ok,
It is not the easiest way of the World...but it is not the most
complicated. First we think to start of the best aproximation: the REAL
aproximation so:
-If the marks are only marks and not physically separation...don't separate
in different ways...because is not REAL.
-If the way is double direction way you have to tag it with the appropiate
direction scheme. It is not difficult: forward and backward.
-If this road is in this way (with these traffic signs, with these
restrictions, with these road marks...is for a good reason as you say in
the first email)

So we have to tag it precisely.Then ...What we have in Openstreetmap to tag
it?

In OSM you have (without relations) :

-change:lanes= to "draw" the lines (and mark the properties these lines
have, remember there are traffic signs: horizontal traffic signs. In some
countries they have traffic sign code too)
-turn:lanes= to "draw" the arrows (and of course to add the value to each
lane you have
-destination:lanes= to "draw" the destination of each lane because in this
example every lane has its own destination.

Also you know (Hi I'm presenting myself  I'm the crazy traffic sign JOSM
guy - traffic_signs_XX [4] ) I am worried about vertical traffic signs so
with extended traffic sign proposal [5] you can "draw" all the traffic sign
you have in the pics. Sorry, there's no Mapillary or OSC pics (guys c'mon!
;)


Let's start what I would do in:

[1]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.813784,-73.9338004,3a,75y,27.92h,66.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBwJUpJjqy_IH5HP1SmzcFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

lanes:forward=3
change:lanes:forward=no|no|no
turn:lanes:forward=through;left|through|trough;right
destination:lanes:forward=| Seward only|

With extended traffic sign proposal there would be two nodes, at the nearly
same position telling:

For one node before the cross:

traffic_signs:forward=US:R3-6
turn:destination=through;right
side=up

For another one node nearly before the cross:

traffic_signs:2:forward=US:R3-5a
destination=Seward Only
side=up

(Note for local traffic engineers. I would change these to traffic signs
with US:R3-8 or US:R-8b [6] , giving the information together I think is
easier to take a decision).

Ok we continue driving

[2]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8147778,-73.9331364,3a,75y,26.57h,57.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJlScKIDzM8Gu0iu2GslFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

lanes:forward=3
change:lanes:forward=no|no|no
turn:lanes:forward=left|left|right

With extended traffic sign proposal there would be three nodes, at the
nearly same position telling:

For one node before the cross:

traffic_signs:forward=US:R3-5
side=up
turn:destination=right
destination=Union St Only

For another node nearly before the crossing:

traffic_signs:2:forward=US:R3-5
side=up
turn:destination=left
destination=Seward Place Only

For another node nearly before the other ones:

traffic_signs:3:forward=US:R3-5
side=up
turn:destination=left
destination=Union St Only

Ok, and then we will finish our drive with turning left and then...
[3]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8153897,-73.9341984,3a,75y,294.27h,81.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7sxU233GvgJ9LBbSAC4_ng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

lanes:forward=2
change:lanes:forward=no|no
turn:lanes:forward=through|right


Of course If I were a local engineer I would reforce the road marks and
traffic signs with

traffic_signs:forward=US:R3-5
turn:destination=right
destination=Seward Place Only
side=up

For another one node nearly before the cross:

traffic_signs:2:forward=US:R3-5a
side=up

This is How I would map these trips.
I hope it will help you
yopaseopor

PD:

[1]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.813784,-73.9338004,3a,75y,27.92h,66.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBwJUpJjqy_IH5HP1SmzcFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[2]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8147778,-73.9331364,3a,75y,26.57h,57.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJlScKIDzM8Gu0iu2GslFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[3]
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8153897,-73.9341984,3a,75y,294.27h,81.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7sxU233GvgJ9LBbSAC4_ng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[4] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets
[5]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_traffic_signs_tagging
[6] https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2b.pdf (Page 16)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>>> Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast?
>>>
>>
> You can combine turn:lanes [1] with change:lanes [2], the first describe
> which lane you have to use for which turn, the second where you can change
> lanes and where not.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:change
>
> If you want to show us the current situation, you can drive along with the
> mapillary app and upload, so you don't need to show outdated G*
> pictures ;-)
>

Before doing the Mapillary thing, I have to rig a dashcam first, or at
least have a passenger. The one series of Google pictures showing the signs
was at least to explain the idea.

The combination of turn:lanes and change:lanes sounds plausible, if it will
actually work. I presume that the routing and navigation systems[1] have
some presuppositions about lane continuity through an intersection? Let's
say that I have a setup where A is the stem of a T intersection while B and
C are its left- and right-hand branches.

On A I have tagged:

lanes=5
lanes:forward=3
lanes:backward=2
turn:lanes=right|through|left|left|right
change:lanes=yes|yes|no|no|no

I suppose, given the signage, I could add
direction:lanes=||Union Street|Seward Place|Union Street to indicate what
the overhead signs say.

On B I have
lanes=4
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=2
turn:lanes=right||through|through;left|right
change:lanes=yes|right_only|no|no

In short, I have two lanes turning left from the forward direction of A
into the forward direction of B, and the two lanes of B go through;left and
right respectively at the next intersection.

Presumably, a routing and navigation system will expect that the leftmost
lane of A will become the leftmost lane of B after the turn, while the
center lane of A will become the right lane of B? That's the only way I can
see this scheme working.  It would involve some fairly tricky graph-tracing
to deduce that a vehicle planning to turn right after B must be in the
center lane approaching A, but I suppose that sort of thing is what routers
are good at. Then a navigation system could announce, "Take the center lane
and follow signs toward Seward Place".

I'm guessing, considering the diversity of responses, that this
functionality is slightly beyond what our actual navigation systems have to
offer at present, but it at least gives me hope for a path forward. I may
or may not trouble to tag these things, since I suspect they will change
again before there's an actual data consumer for them. At least, I can see
that it's possible.

I had either missed 'change:lanes' altogether, or else had seen that it was
languishing in 'Proposed' status and moved on.

[1] Yes, I understand the difference, but don't always spell out the whole
phrase - when I said 'router' I really meant the whole stack.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-06 0:29 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer :

> Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated,
> not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted.
>


+1
if you map lanes as carriageways, as lot of stuff breaks, e.g. routing for
emergency situations or pedestrians. It is against one of the most basic
conventions of OSM, don't do it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Colin Smale]

On 2017-04-06 14:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

> On 05.04.2017 23:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: 
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane
>> 
>> this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop trying 
>> to get you from one
>> lane to another.
>> 
>> But then, won't routing engines announce that I have to turn left or right 
>> in order to take the left
>> or right lane? "Turn left onto Nott Terrace" when I'm already on Nott 
>> Terrace would be a pretty
>> confusing instruction. What am I missing?

Navigation systems take account of the angles when deciding what
instructions to give. If a way splits with both 
forks being nearly straight-on and with a small angle between them they
will be saying "keep left/right" and not "turn left/right". 

Routing is distinct from navigation. Routing is mathematically choosing
which lines to follow. Navigation is much more than that - it 
is for the human, so it's about searching for locations, giving
directions (based on the result of the "routing"), displaying maps etc. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 05.04.2017 23:42, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:

Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane

this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop trying 
to get you from one
lane to another.


But then, won't routing engines announce that I have to turn left or right in 
order to take the left
or right lane? "Turn left onto Nott Terrace" when I'm already on Nott Terrace 
would be a pretty
confusing instruction. What am I missing?


correct, that would be another bad side effect from lane mapping. The proposal 
above is wrong.
See my other mail about using turn:lanes together with change:lanes

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote:

Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane


Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated, not when a white line is 
painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted.



this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop trying to 
get you from one lane
to another.


OSM is not only for car routing. Imagine a chicken wants to cross the road, and stumbles over all 
those separate ways just representing lanes.



Then do your turn restrictions.


Turn restrictions are not used for restricting the change of lanes.


On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast?


You can combine turn:lanes [1] with change:lanes [2], the first describe which lane you have to use 
for which turn, the second where you can change lanes and where not.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:change

If you want to show us the current situation, you can drive along with the mapillary app and upload, 
so you don't need to show outdated G* pictures ;-)


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane
>
> this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop
> trying to get you from one lane to another.
>

But then, won't routing engines announce that I have to turn left or right
in order to take the left or right lane? "Turn left onto Nott Terrace" when
I'm already on Nott Terrace would be a pretty confusing instruction. What
am I missing?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Warin]

Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane

this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop 
trying to get you from one lane to another.


Then do your turn restrictions.

On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
Near where I live, there are several places where lane restrictions 
continue for several city blocks. These 'advance' turn restrictions 
are confusing to human drivers, and so far it seems that navigation 
systems can't cope with them at all. I'm wondering if it's even 
possible under our current schemes to tag them.


Here's a typical example.

Nott Terrace, approaching Eastern Avenue/Liberty Street. 
https://goo.gl/maps/thBW7UYMBDy


The leftmost lane may go straight or turn left on Liberty Street. 
Traffic going straight will be required to turn left at the next 
intersection (Union Street), and proceed straight on Union Street at 
the following intersection.


The center lane must go straight across Eastern Avenue. Traffic in 
this lane will be required to turn left on Union Street, and then will 
be required to turn right on Seward Place.


The right lane may turn right on Eastern Avenue, or may proceed 
straight. Traffic going straight will be required to turn right on 
Union Street.


The restrictions on traffic going straight are confirmed by signage at 
the next intersection https://goo.gl/maps/Soy6NxDprBG2 - the left lane 
must go west on Union Street, the center lane north on Seward Place, 
and the right east on Union Street.


The pavement markings are in poor condition on the Google Maps images, 
but recently refreshed to show solid white lines between the lanes 
throughout this entire stretch. There is essentially no opportunity to 
change lane in this sequence, so a driver must choose the appropriate 
lane when approaching Eastern Avenue from the south, committing to a 
series of actions through the next three intersections.


Not shown in Google Street View yet, but present on the ground, are 
equally confusing restrictions on Nott Terrace approaching State 
Street in the opposite direction. One lane must turn left on State 
Street, the next lane goes straight through that intersection but 
turns left on Albany street, and the third line either turns right on 
State or goes straight through onto Veeder Ave.


Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast? I've been reading 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction which appears 
to be the closest thing I've found on the Wiki, but I'm having trouble 
putting the pieces together to describe these situations. I'm guessing 
that I'm missing something.






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