Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

14. May 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > > > sent from a phone > On 14. May 2018, at 08:48, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > > >>> Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane? >> >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> -Original Message- > From: Marc Gemis > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 19:40 > > The wiki page on cycling infrastructure from the Lübeck Stammtish, > mentioned this explicitly "und/oder", see [1] > > I also see that they use cycleway:left/right=sidepath, I have never

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 19:07 according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right" at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed? This particular wiki page seems to be somewhat misleading in that

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> -Original Message- > From: Marc Gemis > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:55 > >> cycleway:left=opposite_lane (or cycleway:right, depending) >> oneway:bicycle=no > > I would expect that the above is for the case that there is only a > contra-flow lane. And that for

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The wiki page on cycling infrastructure from the Lübeck Stammtish, mentioned this explicitly "und/oder", see [1] I also see that they use cycleway:left/right=sidepath, I have never used that, I used bicycle:forward/backward=use_sidepath What is the preferred method ? [1]

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > > according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right" >> at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed? >> > > Wher did you find this exclusion? >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> according to the wiki, you can't use "cycleway:left" and "cycleway:right" > at the same time. Would you agree this requirement should be removed? > Wher did you find this exclusion? The "cycleway" wiki page [1] does not exclude it, I would say: " Consider using the cycleway:left

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-14 10:37 GMT+02:00 : > For one-way streets, I’m not sure how most software is going to interpret > it. As it’s somewhat ambiguous, I would say the better solution with a > oneway street is to go with an explicit: > > > > cycleway:left=lane > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:37 if there is only one cycle lane, but it’s allowed to travel in both directions on an otherwise one-way road use: cycleway:left=opposite (or cycleway:right, depending which side, as

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

st use oneway:bicycle=no (which is the preferred method in Belgium afaik) in case there are no lanes. > > > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2018 18:19 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> &g

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> > if one of the two is for traffic against the flow indicated by the oneway > tag, use: > > > > cycleway:left=opposite_lane (or cycleway:right, depending) > > oneway:bicycle=no > I would expect that the above is for the case that there is only a contra-flow lane. And that for drive with the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

16:38 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes sent from a phone On 14. May 2018, at 08:05, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > <osm.ta

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 14. May 2018, at 08:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is the latter for oneway streets with a counterflow lane? > > > for oneway streets with a counterflow lane > > cycleway=opposite_lane is typically used > this is for situations where

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Here is one example of a road with soft cycle lanes but no (vehicle) lanes. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Z0DBe6sffpL7aubYj0zpaQ I use it regularly, it is plenty wide enough to pass other cars whilst staying out of the cycle lane but a lot of drivers do struggle with the concept of mostly

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

13. May 2018 23:34 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be the intermediate > consumers of the data - not the end users, but rather the people who > implement the routers, renderers, navigation

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

ging <>> tagging@openstreetmap.org >> <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> > >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes >> >> >> [...] >> It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way >> to stand

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

14. May 2018 08:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > On 14. May 2018, at 08:05, <> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > > <> > osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > > wrote: > > >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 14. May 2018, at 08:05, > wrote: > > So the easiest tagging is: > > > > lanes=2 > > cycleway=lane > is there a difference to cycleway:both=lane ? Is the latter for oneway streets with a

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:51:26 -0400 From: Bryan Housel <br...@7thposition.com> To: osm-tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes [...] It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way to standardi

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives? if you want to be explicit, you could also add cycleway:left:lanes=0 and cycleway:right:lanes=0 ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My (basic) tagging would be: > highway=unclassified (or whatever) > cycleway:right=lane > cycleway:right:oneway=yes > cycleway:left=lane > cycleway:left:oneway=-1 > > the value "-1" is discouraged for

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good > way to standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping > dataset. Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Hah speaking of lanes.. Why does the osm wiki page for `leisure=track` list `lanes=*` under the “useful combination” section. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=track I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an athletics track that

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

13. May 2018 20:58 by ba...@ursamundi.org : > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com > > > wrote: > >> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the >> tag is defined, create a new

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> On May 13, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis > wrote: > Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the > tag is defined, create a new one.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Am 11.05.2018 um 17:40 schrieb Paul Johnson: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even > the Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a > superior approach comes around. > Try to change the semantics of an existing LINUX system call (which

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis wrote: > Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how > the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one. > Improvement=vandalism. Got it. > The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one. The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward > but > > correct. > > > This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward but > correct. This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it) and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I would just map them as lanes =2; cycleway=lane. That is how they are mapped in Belgium and The Netherlands. Isn't that the L1a case of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle that you describe ? regards m. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question > about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without > changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes. > > Thanks in

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes. Thanks in advance On 13 May 2018 at 16:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018, 00:37 Marc Gemis wrote: > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. > This literally doesn't add up. Also, that's a shoulder on the right, Tulsa screwed up and used white paint for the centerline. Awkward but correct. But as

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward but correct. But as said before, the lanes tag is pretty useless beside some simple, straightforward street layouts, for even number of total lanes evenly divided in both directions. Lanes=3 is useless, not? So once

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2018, at 22:01, Marc Gemis wrote: > > So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a > larger number says no. I don’t know who the other person is, my stance is they would better be counted but I don’t do it currently,

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to > count cycle lanes? The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue. How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2? https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a larger number says no. AFAIK a non-OSM person will not count cycle lanes when asked to tell how many lanes a road has. I asked around on the Belgian OSM Riot Channel and immediately got 3 responses, to NOT count cycle lanes. So

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't >> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. >> > > We do that because of a UN

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. We do that because of a UN convention: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years >> now, the only thing that could >> > happen on this would be improve. >> > > So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong. Which means that

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong. Which means that > 6,700,000 get it right. > These numbers are inflated, most highways don't have cycle lanes, so it doesn't matter, they keep their count in both ways of counting.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> >> You forgot an important condition. ALL of these changes must take place >> AT THE SAME >> TIME. Not just co-ordination of software, but

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > >> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: >> >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> None of these three things are a problem now, except

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > We have this problem even at this moment > > (since you apply another definition than many other

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >> barrier. >> >> It does not sound that way to me. It sounds to me

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > > You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-12 13:04 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are > marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway > are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of >> bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote: > > We have this problem even at this moment > (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we > can refer you, new mappers and data consumers to the wiki page and > say this is how it

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org : > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=* is used and coordinate release of new version of any

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

11. May 2018 19:49 by pla16...@gmail.com : > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson <> ba...@ursamundi.org > > > wrote: > >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >> barrier. >> > It does not sound

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2018 05:49 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of > bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for > lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes. > All

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 12:50 Paul Allen wrote: > > At which point in that long transition should editors switch? And when > should > renderers switch? And when should routeing algorithms switch? > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > It does not sound that way to me. It sounds to me like there is a very real problem in redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The only way to do it properly is - define a new tag "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" - deprecate lanes (during this period data-consumers should use "lanes_for_all_transportation_modes" and fallback on "lanes" if the former is not there) - wait until all highways with a lanes tag also have

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual barrier. On Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:25 Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The first reference to tagging lanes for cyclist on the lanes page is made here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanes=revision=648732=648729 by PeterIto My interpretation is that he writes that cycle lanes should be mapped as cycleway=lane (and thus not be included in the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even the > Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior > approach comes around. The difference between having a small

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Is OsmAnd interpreting the lanes tag correctly in the presence of cycle lanes when it is tagged like you do ? On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> > The definitions of what a lane is

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even the > Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a superior > approach comes around. typically such a thing is done in 2

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:58 wrote: > I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with > cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2, > cycleway=lane, and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values > each).

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis wrote: > > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. > That's fine. They don't have to be the same. > > it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really > warn about the difference. Now

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 02:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count > the "full width segments for motorised

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 01:56 wrote: > > From: Marc Gemis > > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44 > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only > > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 11:57 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > > Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live > > in a rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these > > using the width

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 15:11, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Martin, in case of the absence of lane markings, does one have to use > flashing lights to change "virtual" lanes ? Romans make very sparse use of turn indicators in general, compared to German

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

we have some crossings with 4 lanes where the driving direction is south/north/south/north (we drive on the right hand side normally, so it should have been south/south/north/north). They did this so left turning traffic is not blocking the left turning traffic from the other side. This can not be

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM, wrote: The real world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make > of it. > Indeed. Many years ago I encountered two places in the UK (one in Scotland, one in England) where a road which had three lanes across

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone On 11. May 2018, at 14:25, wrote: >> If 3 vehicles drove side by side (which is the >> typical situation there, not counting the psv lane), which one would be >> "outside" the lanes? > > The middle

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 21:45 > while I would generally agree with the idea of having officially 3 lanes, > I would have thought that lanes would have to be painted on the road, not > just indicated by signs. Under the strict reading

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 13:24 GMT+02:00 : > I would tag that as: > > > > oneway=yes > > lanes=3 > > lanes:psv=1 > > vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no > > psv:lanes=yes|yes|designated > > parking:lane:left=parallel > > parking:condition:left=ticket > > sidewalk=both > > > > This sign

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 20:46 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes I would also find it misleading to tag situations with lanes=2 where there is a pain

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I would also find it misleading to tag situations with lanes=2 where there is a painted bus lane and the rest of the carriageway (wide enough for 2-3 lanes) has no separations, like here:

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

rategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes 2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk <mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk> >: Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I liv

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 11:36 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > Roads with a width less than 4.5m do not have lane markings. I live in a > rural area where there are a lot of such roads and tag these using the > width tag. I would only use lanes if there are painted lanes on the road.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On 11 May 2018 08:58:16 BST, Marc Gemis wrote: >If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your >non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture >? >At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on >the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

2018-05-11 9:58 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your > non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture > ? > At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on > the ground. If

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

ted tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes > > > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are > different. That's fine. They don't have to be the same. > > it would help though that validators and QA

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. That's > fine. They don't have to be the same. it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering whose right. m.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

arc.ge...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 17:58 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes > > If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to > your non-

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

to be smaller than 2 m, not ?) can drive over it, without blocking cars in other lanes. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijstrook p.s. this discussion should have been taking to a different thread, as we are now hijacking the OP's tread on "tagging of one-way cycle lanes". On F

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

If you were not trying to tag this situation, but explain it to your non-OSM friends, would you say that there are 2 lanes in that picture ? At least in Belgium a lane is defined by having some white markings on the ground. If there are no markings, there is only 1 lane. I do not know how it is

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis wrote: > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count the > "full width segments for motorised traffic". what is the definition for “full width”? Is a road with 1,8 width lanes=0?

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2018, at 05:49, Marc Gemis wrote: > > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised > traffic. I agree with Paul, it has always bothered me to have this inconsistency in the definitions. What would you say

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> From: Marc Gemis > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44 > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps > because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) define > them that way.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> >>> in JOSM the “lane and road attributes” mapstyle will help visualizing >>> these tagged lanes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Use vehicle instead of motor_vehicle (to keep carriages out of your >>> cycle lanes…). >>> >>&g

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > I'll agree with all your tags, as ":lanes" is for all lanes, including > cycle lanes. > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised > traffic. > Right, but *why*? I can't think of any

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

lanes count (which only counts marked lanes for motorized traffic) and the >> number of entries in the :lanes prefix keys can and will be different! >> (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the >> :lanes prefix tags by many years, and

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

OK, a little more thought on this. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:45 PM, wrote: > If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right. > > The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* [image: > Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 00:29 wrote: > The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized > traffic. This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle > traffic on this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

ursday, 10 May 2018 15:28 To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized traffic. This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

makes the key useless as it can’t be relied on anymore. From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 14:56 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes I stro

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

ent segments of the same road, is going to result in > useless, unreliable data as a data consumer will have no way to > differentiate what definition of lanes=count would apply.) > > > > See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_d

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

lane_for_bicycles for an example of that. From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2018 11:30 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes My suggestion: cyclew

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

My suggestion: cycleway=lane lanes=4 lanes:forward=2 lanes:backward=2 motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not allowed out of the bike lane on a bike) bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

The tagging as you described is correct. An alternative is to use simply cycleway=lane or cycleway:left=lane cycleway:right=lane if you want to be explicit about that there are lanes on both sides of the street. I venture to say that any data consumer that processes bicycle-data will

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Hi, I would assume that in-carriageway cycle lanes (not separate cycle tracks) are one-way by default, just like the general traffic lanes they are part of. Certainly where I live, I do not feel the need to tag them as one-way. Kind regards, Adam On Wed, 9 May 2018, 18:13 Volker Schmidt,

  1   2   >