Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Roy Wallace wrote: But I agree with Tobias also - we should first create a good concept for modelling the lanes themselves. Tobias, could you link to the latest/most promising proposal, if there is one? If we already had a superior proposal, this would be a lot easier. What we have so far is: * a German-only page that lists some alternatives, mostly tag-based solutions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Germany/Workshops/Linienb%C3%BCndel * a rather old proposal I've created myself (though I'm no longer convinced it would work in practice, it's probably a bit too complex to be widely used without editor support): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lane_and_lane_group * some unconnected suggestions like this talk page entry (that didn't go anywhere so far, but a proposal based on the idea could actually work): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Advanced_footway_and_cycleway#Expanding_this_proposal_to_include_multi-lane_tagging Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Wmm why can't we say: 1L for the leftmost lane 2L for the second lane from left 1R for the rightmost lane where left and right is seen in driving-direction. So then the 2 rightmode lane seperates you can talk about 1R and 2R. Peter Yann Coupin schrieb: Plus what does inner mean on a oneway road? I think it's crucial that lane 1 is either left or right depending uppon what is decided but that it stays the same accross the world. It'll be unusable otherwise. I propose 1 is left because we start to write from the left. It's completly arbitrary, but that way at least it follows a logic that stays the same accross the channel :) And since the tags are in latin characters, it's just to be consistent, not to ignore people writing in arabic or hebrew (if people still take offense, I did my best not to ;) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
2009/8/20 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Wmm why can't we say: 1L for the leftmost lane 2L for the second lane from left 1R for the rightmost lane where left and right is seen in driving-direction. So then the 2 rightmode lane seperates you can talk about 1R and 2R. I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations with more than 18 lanes). I'd prefer to get to a map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then recombine them with a relation, describing the possible changing from one lane to the other (possible-all-time, possible but legally prohibited, divider height=0.2m / 2m (Kerb/wall, whatever), green). This spacial representation would also allow to positionate additional objects at their actual spacial location (e.g. traffic-lights, bollards, speed-cams, guard-rails, lower kerbs, sculptures, trees, traffic-signs, benches, etc.) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/20 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de: Wmm why can't we say: 1L for the leftmost lane 2L for the second lane from left 1R for the rightmost lane where left and right is seen in driving-direction. So then the 2 rightmode lane seperates you can talk about 1R and 2R. I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations with more than 18 lanes). I'd prefer to get to a map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then recombine them with a relation, describing the possible changing from one lane to the other (possible-all-time, possible but legally prohibited, divider height=0.2m / 2m (Kerb/wall, whatever), green). This spacial representation would also allow to positionate additional objects at their actual spacial location (e.g. traffic-lights, bollards, speed-cams, guard-rails, lower kerbs, sculptures, trees, traffic-signs, benches, etc.) how could you do this practically? aligning 18 lanes as individual ways is impossible in the current data model and editors. agree that ways with dividers should be separate ways because routing must know crossing is not allowed. adding this info to any lane concept will make it too complicated as soon as crossing is allowed all lanes can be modeled with any multi lane numbering scheme. having them as separate ways is wrong then because routing will not work for lane changes. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
2009/8/20 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: how could you do this practically? aligning 18 lanes as individual ways is impossible in the current data model and editors. Why? It's very possible: just do it. Btw: I's not 18 lanes, but 1+parking+1+divider+2+divider+3+divider+3+divider+2+divider+buslane+divider+pedestrian+cyclelane+1+divider, so I was not just counting the lanes but also the dividers (and it's more than 18). Currently that's different ways (because of the dividers) with lanes=3, lanes=2, etc., which does somehow work, but not represent well the situation at junctions. agree that ways with dividers should be separate ways because routing must know crossing is not allowed. adding this info to any lane concept will make it too complicated Yes, but maybe you got me wrong: I suggested to draw and tag the dividers as well. as soon as crossing is allowed all lanes can be modeled with any multi lane numbering scheme. having them as separate ways is wrong then because routing will not work for lane changes. that what exactly my point: It _will_ be possible with this kind of relation, that indicates, where you can cross. This is IMHO necessary e.g. for motorway-ramps, separately mapped pavements and cycleways, etc. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
then we are closer as I thought. still mapping multiple parallel lanes with multiple lines is too difficult. consider a bestcase accuracy of +/- 2-3m with handheld gps and current areal pics. this is the size of a typical car lane. aligning many smaller structures is just magic guessing. therefore I wouldn't go so far to map dividers itself as they are in 99% aligned with the highway instead add an attribute for a cycle lane separated by a drawn line the current cycleway=lane is good enough too. is there any application or use case where you need such tiny details? On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/20 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: how could you do this practically? aligning 18 lanes as individual ways is impossible in the current data model and editors. Why? It's very possible: just do it. Btw: I's not 18 lanes, but 1+parking+1+divider+2+divider+3+divider+3+divider+2+divider+buslane +divider+pedestrian+cyclelane+1+divider, so I was not just counting the lanes but also the dividers (and it's more than 18). Currently that's different ways (because of the dividers) with lanes=3, lanes=2, etc., which does somehow work, but not represent well the situation at junctions. agree that ways with dividers should be separate ways because routing must know crossing is not allowed. adding this info to any lane concept will make it too complicated Yes, but maybe you got me wrong: I suggested to draw and tag the dividers as well. as soon as crossing is allowed all lanes can be modeled with any multi lane numbering scheme. having them as separate ways is wrong then because routing will not work for lane changes. that what exactly my point: It _will_ be possible with this kind of relation, that indicates, where you can cross. This is IMHO necessary e.g. for motorway-ramps, separately mapped pavements and cycleways, etc. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'm opposing this approach of just tagging different lanes to one way as this gets too complicated in complex situations (I know situations with more than 18 lanes). I'd prefer to get to a map-all-lanes-and-dividers-as-separate-ways-approach and then recombine them with a relation Which is too complicated in simple situations. Maybe one approach fits all just doesn't work. Honestly, I don't think any solution that /requires/ lanes to be mapped as ways can be successful, it will cause significant additional work when it comes to junctions, to moving ways and other editing operations. Neither do I think mappers should be required to use relations for simple cases. To me, the most sensible solution would be one that allows representation by a single way with the highway tags and several tags referring to individual lanes (in a way that doesn't even require you to add all lanes - you might only be interested in adding some detail to that cycle lane, for example). At the same time, the solution might offer the /option/ to split lanes off the collective highway (i.e. map them as own ways) and link them to the highway using a single relation as well. I believe it fits the project's general spirit to allow mappers to choose their level of detail (and other mappers to increase it if they are ready to invest the time). Lod steps could be described as 1. road without lane detail 2. road with partial lane data (think cycleway=lane) 3. road with full lane data, but no lane geometry 4. road with full lane data and partial lane geometry (e.g. individual ways only for pavements and bicycle lane, but not for the perfectly parallel car lanes) 5. road with full lane data and geometry Allowing only separate ways would take away the choices #3 and #4 and limit #2 to the sort of tags we already use (i.e. no proper ordering, no sub-tags for lanes). Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:48:18 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: I believe it fits the project's general spirit to allow mappers to choose their level of detail (and other mappers to increase it if they are ready to invest the time). +1 Lod steps could be described as 1. road without lane detail 2. road with partial lane data (think cycleway=lane) 3. road with full lane data, but no lane geometry 4. road with full lane data and partial lane geometry (e.g. individual ways only for pavements and bicycle lane, but not for the perfectly parallel car lanes) 5. road with full lane data and geometry So, the question becomes, which of the above are already achievable/in use with existing tags, which are in proposal stage, which need new proposals. And then back to the question, how to model LTR (lane turn restrictions) for ways with each of the above LOD's (level of detail). Obviously at least LOD 2 will be required. But we may find that it's only possible to model LTRs simply for ways with LOD 3 or above. As I see it, the tag lane=* can give enough information to how to number the lanes, if there are 3 lanes in the same direction number them 1 - 3 Left to Right. A lane turn restriction should be able to use these numbers in the roles in some way, and continue to work the same way as normal turn restrictions. member=someway1 role=from.1 (from lane 1) member=someway2 role=to.3 (into lane 3 of the other way) member=somenode role=via (the intersection) This approach shouldn't require too much complications for rendering, routing, and so on. An editor might even be able to check if the lane exists (with lane=* tag) in the to and from members. For the example previously in this thread, I think some grouping can be done, such as all lanes between two physical dividers should be tagged as one way, and all physical barriers that have a sensible tag should be tagged as such. A small curb and such barriers should not be tagged, but putting two highway=primary + oneway=yes in same direction parallel would indicate something like that. When such models becomes complicated, intersections needs to be grouped in special ways, maybe an intersection relation or an area tag? -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote: I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction, feel free to discuss it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial thoughts: Your first examples aren't topologically identical - the first is a 2 lane road with a short 3 lane section followed by a right hand turn whilst the second is a 3 lane road with a right hand turn immediately followed by dropping down to 2 lanes. Of course, this doesn't give you enough detail to know what lane you've got to be in (although you could make some educated guesses). I also don't see the need for phonetics to be tagged (in fact, it seems harmful because it breaks multi-language support). We don't know what kind of display device is going to be used (whether it be on-screen instructions, text to speech, etc.) and it should be up to the software to decide how to present it to the user rather than being explicitly tagged like that. Overall, the proposal seems a bit too complex - I had envisaged a simpler system whereby you could set a relation similar to a turn restriction, such as: TAGs: type: lane_restriction lanes: 1,2 Members: from: way the user is driving along to: way the user wants to turn onto via: junction node Whereby that marks a restriction that lanes 1 and 2 (the left two lanes, in the case of the UK) cannot be used in a route using the from, to and via members. It would actually be nicer to be able to tag which lanes are allowed rather than which are disallowed, but that would be inconsistent with the existing turn restrictions (maybe that isn't a problem? comments?) -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Steve Hill wrote: Is there any suggested way of marking up turn restrictions for individual lanes of a road to enable sat navs to provide lane guidance (e.g. keep right, move into the left lane, etc)? There is no accepted or widely used approach to do this, and actually I don't think it makes much sense to create a concept for this before we have a good concept for modelling the lanes themselves. If we decide to model lanes as individual ways or relations, these lane turn restrictions would, of course, contain the lanes as members. If we add the lanes as numbered tags (e.g. right1:, left3:), then we should refer to these numbers. If we do something completely different, then the lane turn restrictions need to adapt to that. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
I admit that I ended up with a large and complex proposal. Since then it appeared that some aspects have already been covered. But not all of the lane part AFAIK. What you suggest whould probably be an independant proposal, at least for clarity reason, but has value nonetheless although I would prefer the allowed vs. restriction version because it's far more common if we interpret allowed as suggested. On highways for instance, it's usually not so much prohibited as it'd be impractical, as it would require a sharp turn right before the exit/bifurcation. What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. Yann Le 19 août 09 à 10:55, Steve Hill a écrit : On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote: I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction, feel free to discuss it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial thoughts: Your first examples aren't topologically identical - the first is a 2 lane road with a short 3 lane section followed by a right hand turn whilst the second is a 3 lane road with a right hand turn immediately followed by dropping down to 2 lanes. Of course, this doesn't give you enough detail to know what lane you've got to be in (although you could make some educated guesses). I also don't see the need for phonetics to be tagged (in fact, it seems harmful because it breaks multi-language support). We don't know what kind of display device is going to be used (whether it be on-screen instructions, text to speech, etc.) and it should be up to the software to decide how to present it to the user rather than being explicitly tagged like that. Overall, the proposal seems a bit too complex - I had envisaged a simpler system whereby you could set a relation similar to a turn restriction, such as: TAGs: type: lane_restriction lanes: 1,2 Members: from: way the user is driving along to: way the user wants to turn onto via: junction node Whereby that marks a restriction that lanes 1 and 2 (the left two lanes, in the case of the UK) cannot be used in a route using the from, to and via members. It would actually be nicer to be able to tag which lanes are allowed rather than which are disallowed, but that would be inconsistent with the existing turn restrictions (maybe that isn't a problem? comments?) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway (i.e. the left lane in the UK, the right lane over much of the rest of the world). Although there could be something to be said for making it region-agnostic so that satnavs don't have to know what side of the road you drive in a specific region. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Plus what does inner mean on a oneway road? I think it's crucial that lane 1 is either left or right depending uppon what is decided but that it stays the same accross the world. It'll be unusable otherwise. I propose 1 is left because we start to write from the left. It's completly arbitrary, but that way at least it follows a logic that stays the same accross the channel :) And since the tags are in latin characters, it's just to be consistent, not to ignore people writing in arabic or hebrew (if people still take offense, I did my best not to ;) Yann Le 19 août 09 à 16:01, Steve Hill a écrit : What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway (i.e. the left lane in the UK, the right lane over much of the rest of the world). Although there could be something to be said for making it region-agnostic so that satnavs don't have to know what side of the road you drive in a specific region. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Isn't near-side a term that can be used as a reference point on a road (left or right-hand driving)? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
If we just add lane information to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign can we make it work? /Martin Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:55:01 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Hill st...@nexusuk.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions To: Yann Coupin y...@coupin.net Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: alpine.lrh.2.00.0908190939450.1...@persephone.nexusuk.org Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote: I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction, feel free to discuss it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial thoughts: Your first examples aren't topologically identical - the first is a 2 lane road with a short 3 lane section followed by a right hand turn whilst the second is a 3 lane road with a right hand turn immediately followed by dropping down to 2 lanes. Of course, this doesn't give you enough detail to know what lane you've got to be in (although you could make some educated guesses). I also don't see the need for phonetics to be tagged (in fact, it seems harmful because it breaks multi-language support). We don't know what kind of display device is going to be used (whether it be on-screen instructions, text to speech, etc.) and it should be up to the software to decide how to present it to the user rather than being explicitly tagged like that. Overall, the proposal seems a bit too complex - I had envisaged a simpler system whereby you could set a relation similar to a turn restriction, such as: TAGs: type: lane_restriction lanes: 1,2 Members: from: way the user is driving along to: way the user wants to turn onto via: junction node Whereby that marks a restriction that lanes 1 and 2 (the left two lanes, in the case of the UK) cannot be used in a route using the from, to and via members. It would actually be nicer to be able to tag which lanes are allowed rather than which are disallowed, but that would be inconsistent with the existing turn restrictions (maybe that isn't a problem? comments?) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Yann Coupiny...@coupin.net wrote: Plus what does inner mean on a oneway road? I think it's crucial that lane 1 is either left or right depending uppon what is decided but that it stays the same accross the world. It'll be unusable otherwise. I propose 1 is left because we start to write from the left. +1. But I agree with Tobias also - we should first create a good concept for modelling the lanes themselves. Tobias, could you link to the latest/most promising proposal, if there is one? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:01:24 +0100 (BST), Steve Hill st...@nexusuk.org wrote: On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway (i.e. the left lane in the UK, the right lane over much of the rest of the world). Although there could be something to be said for making it region-agnostic so that satnavs don't have to know what side of the road you drive in a specific region. In Brazil, where lane numbers have been signed (at least where I have seen such signs), the numbering follows the direction you read, i.e. from left to right. Left most lane is 1, and rightmost lane is n. For example when leaving Vitoria, passing the bus station the road is 8 lane for a short bit, with signs saying lane 1, 2 to 5th bridge, lane 3, 4 to bus station and return to centro, lane 5, 6 to 1st bridge, lane 7, 8 to some suburb. Maybe lane numbering is country specific, I don't know. -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
Well, I don't know about Hebrew. But at least some of the languages that use Arabic script (there are many) write the sentences and words from right to left, but the numbers from left to right. I have no idea about Chinese/Japanese etc. But I think that left to right for numbers, while not universal, is possibly the most known version. Stephen 2009/8/20 Yann Coupin y...@coupin.net: Plus what does inner mean on a oneway road? I think it's crucial that lane 1 is either left or right depending uppon what is decided but that it stays the same accross the world. It'll be unusable otherwise. I propose 1 is left because we start to write from the left. It's completly arbitrary, but that way at least it follows a logic that stays the same accross the channel :) And since the tags are in latin characters, it's just to be consistent, not to ignore people writing in arabic or hebrew (if people still take offense, I did my best not to ;) Yann ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
I looked on the wiki but couldn't see anything... Is there any suggested way of marking up turn restrictions for individual lanes of a road to enable sat navs to provide lane guidance (e.g. keep right, move into the left lane, etc)? -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
