Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Simon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 02:16:07PM +0100, Martin Norbäck wrote: >> b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a >> small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the >> other side. They look like this: >> http://www.vv.se/filer/Vägprojekt/3-Falt.jpg > > Having the fence would suggest you cannot physically traverse from one > side to the other (without destroying or jumping over the fence or any > other method you care to think of), which would lead me to representing > it as two separate ways. A relation can be used for information about > the "collective" way. The = is the right lane and - is the left lane, between them there is always a fence. A typical road would look something like this: === -------- -- The point of tagging it is that you want it rendred on the map to get visual feedback, So with only two ways, you need something line "lanes=2; render_extended_way=left", which isn't a good way to do it. /Erik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 02:16:07PM +0100, Martin Norbäck wrote: > b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a > small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the > other side. They look like this: > http://www.vv.se/filer/Vägprojekt/3-Falt.jpg Having the fence would suggest you cannot physically traverse from one side to the other (without destroying or jumping over the fence or any other method you care to think of), which would lead me to representing it as two separate ways. A relation can be used for information about the “collective” way. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
Martin Norbäck schrieb: >>> The advantage of having a simple tagging mechanism like this is that >>> the editors can easily prevent accidental reversal of a way, like josm >>> does right now with oneway. There are probably other uses for this >>> kind of scheme. And it doesn't really fit into a relation either. >> JOSM will already allow the reversal of tags that are direction specific. > > I think that was what I was saying above, yes. So it should be easy to > extend it to handle the forward:/backward: prefix. I think what Shaun was saying, that JOSM already does that, too :-) It currently supports "forward/backward" and "left/right" as both prefix and suffix and both tag names and relation roles. Robin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
>> I understand that I can map them as two roads, but physically they are >> one road. So I'm thinking, why map them as two roads, when they are one. >> Motorways are different, they consist of two separated pieces of way. >> They have ramps and acceleration fields. Deja vu. This thread is an almost identical repeat of the thread "[OSM-talk] Contraflow bus lane" from October (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-October/thread.html) David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
> >>> b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a >>> small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the >>> other side. They look like this: >>> http://www.vv.se/filer/V?gprojekt/3-Falt.jpg >> >> I would say that these should be done the same way as motorways, with 2 >> parallel one way roads. The appropriate number of lanes can be added for >> each direction. > > I understand that I can map them as two roads, but physically they are > one road. So I'm thinking, why map them as two roads, when they are one. > Motorways are different, they consist of two separated pieces of way. > They have ramps and acceleration fields. > Where there is a physical barrier, splitting a road in two, tag as two separate ways, with a oneway tag. Where a physical barrier splits a road in two, this is a dual carriageway, regardless of how many lanes each carriageway has. It doesn't matter if a dual carriageway has at-grade junctions (i.e. just gaps in the barrier or side-turnings), or motorway-style slip-roads and bridges - they are still both dual carriageways and must be tagged with two ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
2008/11/28 Martin Norbäck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi everybody, > I'm sure this has been discussed in length before, but I cannot seem > to find a good way to search the archives. Anyway, I will present my > thoughts here and you can respond or be quiet :) > > I'm trying to fix at least two issues I have. > > a) A way that is sort of one-way but allows buses and taxis in the > opposite direction. > > Don't know how to tag them, currently I've just ignored buses and > taxis and tagged them oneway=yes. for the cycling equivalent we have cycleway=opposite_lane. I've been arbitrarily doing psv=opposite_lane for some bus lanes in London, which may or may not be described as a complete bastardisation of the access tag... your solution below sounds more sensible to me. > > b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a > small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the > other side. They look like this: > http://www.vv.se/filer/Vägprojekt/3-Falt.jpg > > Now, I want a good way to tag them, and using lanes, you can maybe say > lanes=3, or lanes=2+1, lanes=2,1, lanes=1+2, lanes=1,2, ... but how to > interpret that. I'd rather not resort to mapping these as two ways, as > they are in effect one way, just preventing head on collision. They > have crossings like a normal road, no ramps, acceleration fields, etc. > > I would like a more general mechanism, but yet simple. I propose > something like this > > forward:lanes=2 backward:lanes=1 > (for the sake of the renderer you could also specify lanes=3) Seems reasonable except for the divider -- I'd do that road as two separate ways. We have some roads in the UK which gain a lane and look a bit like that, but with no direction divider (usually positioned to allow easy over taking of lorries on hills). Your tagging solution might work for these quite well. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Martin Norbäck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) A way that is sort of one-way but allows buses and taxis in the > opposite direction. > > Don't know how to tag them, currently I've just ignored buses and > taxis and tagged them oneway=yes. > I don' tag this but perhaps: oneway:taxi=no oneway:public_transport=no it's also (at least in Sweden): oneway:bicycle=no oneway:foot=no :-) There is a category on the wiki for these kind of tags so if you document these then please add them to tht category. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Way_Direction_Dependant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
for better describing of lane-situation we should use lane-relations. So we are even able to set position to each other very simple and hi detailed -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
Hi, On 28 Nov 2008, at 13:16, Martin Norbäck wrote: Hi everybody, I'm sure this has been discussed in length before, but I cannot seem to find a good way to search the archives. Anyway, I will present my thoughts here and you can respond or be quiet :) I'm trying to fix at least two issues I have. a) A way that is sort of one-way but allows buses and taxis in the opposite direction. Don't know how to tag them, currently I've just ignored buses and taxis and tagged them oneway=yes. It might be easier to use 2 parallel ways for this. It wouldn't surprise me if in a years time every [major] road has a way for each direction that you can travel on it. b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the other side. They look like this: http://www.vv.se/filer/Vägprojekt/3-Falt.jpg I would say that these should be done the same way as motorways, with 2 parallel one way roads. The appropriate number of lanes can be added for each direction. [...] The advantage of having a simple tagging mechanism like this is that the editors can easily prevent accidental reversal of a way, like josm does right now with oneway. There are probably other uses for this kind of scheme. And it doesn't really fit into a relation either. JOSM will already allow the reversal of tags that are direction specific. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
Martin Norbäck wrote: > Hi everybody, > I'm sure this has been discussed in length before, but I cannot seem > to find a good way to search the archives. Anyway, I will present my > thoughts here and you can respond or be quiet :) > > I'm trying to fix at least two issues I have. > > a) A way that is sort of one-way but allows buses and taxis in the > opposite direction. > > Don't know how to tag them, currently I've just ignored buses and > taxis and tagged them oneway=yes. To my knowledge, there is currently no official way to tag direction-dependant (and no way to tag things on a specific side of the way as well). Every discussion in the past showed that there is no trivial way to do it, and as it will heavily affect future tagging, any attempt to solve this problem should be well thought and planned. At least I think that is what has prevented any implementation of such tagging. > b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a > small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the > other side. They look like this: > http://www.vv.se/filer/Vägprojekt/3-Falt.jpg In Germany we have come to the agreement that if you have an object "one street", but the two driving directions are separated in such a way that you cannot simply (although maybe illegally) choose any lane with your vehicle, because there is some kind of obstacle - like your fence - then this street is tagged as two single ways, having oneway=yes set appropriately, and maybe have a proper lanes-tag set as well. For you it would be lanes=2 for the double way, and lanes=1 for the single way. Regarding obstacles: Your fence is clearly an obstacle for almost any vehicle, similar obstacles are any other form of vertical separation, like walls. But even grass islands in the middle of the two ways qualify as obstacle, even though they may be passed by bike or by foot, or even by car. Motorways which only have a small patch of grass between the two asphalt lanes should rather be tagged as two independent ways, with appropriate tagging for the land between them, if you like. > Now, I want a good way to tag them, and using lanes, you can maybe say > lanes=3, or lanes=2+1, lanes=2,1, lanes=1+2, lanes=1,2, ... but how to > interpret that. I'd rather not resort to mapping these as two ways, as > they are in effect one way, just preventing head on collision. They > have crossings like a normal road, no ramps, acceleration fields, etc. Tagging it as two ways clearly state that you cannot turn around at will, but have to drive on until you reach a crossing. Routing software should be able to use this information. Just have a look at German Autobahn: This almost always is only one wide band of asphalt, but is tagged as two ways with oneway=yes, just because this form of road has special traffic rules regarding turning (disallowed! ;) ). Regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
