Poll: Parking lanes and traffic lanes

Help and support Tagging help & support
, ,
1

Good day!

I’m currently discussing with @Supaplex030 how to count the number of lanes (lanes=*) when parking is allowed. We have two very different views on how this should be handled, and it might affect how lane parking is tagged in general. I would like to understand what the community thinks about parking lanes and traffic lanes, so a bit of background first.

The wiki for lanes=* says:

So the question we’re asking ourselves is: what is a lane “dedicated and marked for parking” (called a parking lane from now on), and what are “traffic lanes”? We’re not looking at Wikipedia, it’s just about the understanding of the community.

Option 1

A lane has constantly parked cars on it. With these parked cars, it gets so narrow that you have to change lane when driving a vehicle wider than a motorcycle. This is a parking lane, because you cannot constantly drive on it due to parking cars. You will have to wait for traffic and let them pass very often. This means the following picture has only one traffic lane (the left lane), and the right lane would be considered a parking lane. It could also be staggered parking, so sometimes the left side would be the traffic lane, sometimes the right side. We tag lanes=1, because there is only 1 traffic lane at a time:

image
image675×665 52.8 KB

Option 2

Lanes with a parking symbol dedicates them as parking lanes (in this case limited to cars). This means the following picture has 2 traffic lanes and 1 parking lane. Therefore: lanes=2.

image
image1403×789 146 KB

Option 3

Lanes which are separated from the driving lanes by paint are parking lanes. In this case, I’m referring to the parked cars next to the red bicycle lane. You are not allowed to drive there. There are 2 driving lanes (one for each direction), 1 bicycle lane, and 1 parking lane. This means, the following picture is

lanes=2
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no|no
bicycle:lanes=yes|yes|designated|no
parking:lanes=yes|no|no|designated`

or something like that.

image
image1576×541 103 KB

This next image would also be lanes=2. The parking lane on the right is separated by paint directly from the traffic lane. You’re not allowed to drive there.

1356×617 87.4 KB

This would also qualify as two parking lanes, one on either side of the road. The markings are different.

image
image1445×613 132 KB

Option 4

lanes which are separated from the driving lanes by surface are parking lanes. There are no marked lanes here, this is purely to show what they could look like. Vote for this, if you consider the paving stones on the right side a parking lane. Don’t vote for this, if you consider this parking=street_side!

image
image1214×522 81.8 KB

Option 5

If parking spaces or parking space ranges are regularly painted on the lane, this lane is dedicated to parking, and becomes a parking lane. Some countries allow driving over such marked parking spaces, some don’t. Let’s assume it is allowed.

image
image994×733 69.9 KB

Option 6

Every lane where cars can park on is a parking lane and not a traffic lane. These lanes should be removed from the lanes=* count. Because you are not allowed to park on the left side (due to the cycleway), this makes this image lanes=1, and the right lane a parking lane:

image
image900×352 97.9 KB

Poll

Which options do you consider showing a parking lane? Check all that apply.
  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • Option 3
  • Option 4
  • Option 5
  • Option 6
0 voters
2 Likes
3

It’s always allowed, but limited to 1h at work days. But the point was to show a parking sign, sorry.
Update: I replaced that image to make it easier to understand

4

Option 1, 2 and 3 are all not counting lanes accurately, just because you can park in the lane doesn’t stop it from being a lane. vehicle:lanes=* makes no sense, bicycles are vehicles, too. Option 3 shows a hard shoulder, a parking lane would have lanes of travel on both sides of it (usually a parking-protected bike lane being on one side).

TLDR: None of the above.

5

motor_vehicle:lanes= can be used, but the result is correct with vehicle:lanes= + bicycle:lanes=
I don’t understand what you are talk about hard shoulders. If it’s signposted specifically for parking, it’s not =shoulder

6

bicycle:lanes is overwriting vehicle lanes

this is not fully correct because then you miss other (but rare) vehicle that are not motor_vehicle (namely carriage) that are also not allowed to use the bicycle lane

7

I think you have to ignore any currently parked cars when counting lanes and when deciding whether a lane is a traffic lane or a parking lane. Whether you are allowed to park on a traffic lane is a separate issue.

3 Likes
8

From my point of view, the question is quite different, namely simply: What value for lanes would you map on the following two images (image 1 is from the examples above)? Both show roads with unmarked street parking on the right side (parking:right=lane + parking:right:orientation=parallel).

grafik
grafik690×269 71.4 KB

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • (I wouldn’t tag lanes in this case)
0 voters

grafik
grafik1418×806 192 KB

  • 2
  • 3
0 voters
9

grafik
grafik690×269 71.5 KB

This seems to be the crucial point. Why do you think lanes=1? Even if the width of the right-hand lane is somewhat restricted by the parked vehicles, the remaining space is sufficient for me to recognize one lane in each direction (i.e. lanes=2). The exact widths can be set with (estimated):

width=9
cycleway:left:width=1.5
width:lanes:forward=2.5
width:lanes:backward=3
parking:right:width=2

P.S.:

lane_markings=yes
parking:right:markings=no

even clearifies the road marking situation.

1 Like
10

Sorry, is that Gneissen… something a oneway?

11

It’s a dual carriageway, so yes, the road on the picture is tagged as a oneway (Way: ‪Gneisenaustraße‬ (‪1133296877‬) | OpenStreetMap). But does it matter in this case?

12

I don’t, I’m just giving lots of different types of how you could interpret lanes tagging, so people are free to vote :slight_smile:

1 Like
13

Thanks for raising this discussion. It’s clear there are vast differences around the world!

Yes! This exactly. I think the lanes=* wiki is correct in that lanes=* should count how many traffic lanes exist, if you can expect two cars to travel along the road side by side, lanes=2, three cars side by side then lanes=3, etc. Considering that the parking may be empty (no cars parked).

I would consider 2, 3, 4, 5 as dedicated parking lanes (they either have dedicated markings or dedicated space for parking) whereas 1 and 6 share the space with the traffic flow.

It’s interesting you left out my example below, since I would say this is not a dedicated parking lane, since the parking shares the space with the outer traffic flow lane.

image
image690×351 73.3 KB

I’m surprised you tag Option 1 as lanes=1, to me it’s lanes=2 because of the dashed line along the middle. If the parking was empty, it would look like a normal 2 lane road. I would tag this lanes=2 + parking:right=traffic_lane + parking:left=no.

Also Option 2, I don’t know how it works in that country, if the parking was empty (eg no cars parked there) would you expect it to be fine to just drive down that space eg. if we count lanes as 1|2|3, then lane 3, ie. the parking lane) If so I’d still count it as lanes=3, parking=traffic_lane. If it’s more like a dedicated parking area and you wouldn’t drive along there, then lanes=2 + parking=lane.

The mapper on the ground will need to decide if they consider it a traffic lane that you’re allowed to park in and block traffic, OR if it’s considered a dedicated parking lane not to be used by general traffic flow.

14

Just wanted to be sure this was not a left hand drive picture with that black car’s driver not knowing of the ‘keep right’ rule o).

With the tagging of parking:right=lane I cannot but set this road to lanes=2, the definition of a parking lane as being excluded from regular traffic but easily returned to normal ‘unobstructed’ traffic. A sign would do that or as is becoming popular here is a continuous white line left of the right curb. Think to remember a place where yellow painted curbstones tells the same.

BTW would that hazard=children triangle on the left and middle lane also be on the pavement below that metallic grey car? If not there’s an even stronger case for tagging with lanes=2

15

Again: the options above are just possible situations where one would maybe consider one of the lanes a parking lane (a lane marked and dedicated for parking), and because parking lanes have to be removed from the lanes=*-count, if one was to consider option 1 a parking lane, then this would be lanes=1. The arguments I’m making why something is tagged which way, are not necessarily my personal opinion. I’m trying to take different points of view.

The definition of a parking lane that’s to be excluded from the lane count is a lane dedicated and marked for parking in OSM.

16

It’s certainly tagged as were it and parking:right:fee=yes to boot.

17

IMHO this is a completely pointless discussion as the definition of the lanes tag is known to be defective and it will remain that way, regardless of anything voted on here.

See Making lanes orthagonal and consistent

1 Like
18

The cars are parked on the hard shoulder, as is typical for on-street parking when a hard shoulder is available.

19

Looking at this with a fresh eye, I should have said “the count for vehicle lanes is wrong because it should be no fewer than the number of bicycle lanes, which are vehicle lanes” but now that I’m more awake, I’d like to also add, “neither vehicle:lanes=* or bicycle:lanes=* have any numeric value as valid, as these are access tags, and bicycles are allowed in vehicle lanes by definition of being a vehicle”.

20

There’s also a pretty handy way of mapping this, too.

21

Close.

lanes=3
access:lanes=yes|yes|no
bicycle:lanes=yes|yes|designated
shoulder=yes