Tagging number of lanes for non-highway features

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@SekeRob

OT\ On the globe there’s only 25 instances of the area:leisure and to my surprise it did render on Carto standard so wonder what their problem is with some other area:* variations. /OT

(going further off topic - sorry!)

Citation definitely needed for that - this area does not render on OSM Carto although the separately-mapped linear slipway does (well ish - an icon appears, but nothing to indicate the line)
.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@SekeRob

Edit: And the results are in, working from inside out, ever larger perfect replicas of the previous copied ring. 100% parallel. Tagged as divider=solid_line

Thankfully it appears that you didn’t actually save this

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Kovoschiz

A fundamental issue for lanes= on them is using areas instead of lines. This makes the directionality meaningless, and has to be derived implicitly.

I absolutely agree with that - and it’s a problem anywhere that an OSM tag/value combination can actually mean two different things if applied to linear or area things. A “track area” is a very different thing to the line of the track. Airport runways are another example in OSM.

Because leisure=track is so confusing I actually manually tagged all the closed leisure=track ways locally with either area=yes or area=no as appropriate. This overpass query can be used as a template to find problem ones.

(apologies again from diversion from “number of lanes”…)

[SekeRob]

OT\

@SomeoneElse

Thankfully it appears that you didn’t actually save this

That’s what I wrote in me previous post.

@SomeoneElse

Citation definitely needed for that

Think the addition of sport=* made it render as a pitch. Way: 519143534 | OpenStreetMap

Can picture slipways getting rendered, considering the ones in our harbour are rather algae green so maybe add sport=sliding. ;P) Slipways are also rather funny when short or diagonal to shore and end close to a quay way… Mr Osmose and I think Mr OSMI both want to give a ‘citation’ absent a continuance. /OT

Yes we’re going omnidirectional.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@SekeRob

Think the addition of sport=* made it render as a pitch. Way: 519143534 | OpenStreetMap

no, it is leisure=pitch that cause it to render as pitch

area:leisure has no impact on this specific rendering (unless something changed recently)

[SekeRob]

Only Maxwell Smart will understand the kaos.

[Mammi71 (One feature, Six mappers and still More ways to map it)]

@chris66

I once saw a sports track where each lane was mapped seperately with leisere=track, and I hated that.

This consideration does not seem to be an isolated case.

Running tracks: leisure pitch (area) vs leisure track (way)

When mapping a running track (athletics for non-American English speakers) Is there any reason to prefer leisure=track over leisure=pitch, pitch=athletics? I have always thought that areas were better as they express more detail, but I can sort of see an argument for using a linear way given the fact that people use tracks. The issue with leisure=track is that they probably won’t be used for routing given that they are not highways and routing for someone running on a track seems like overkill. …

[rskedgell (Robert Skedgell)]

@Running tracks: leisure pitch (area) vs leisure track (way)

The issue with leisure=track is that they probably won’t be used for routing given that they are not highways and routing for someone running on a track seems like overkill. …

Possibly not for routing, but fitness trackers might want to fit the GNSS trace of a track running activity to a mapped leisure=track object. When I use my Garmin watch’s track running mode on my local track, it smoothes the trace to a perfect-looking track shape for the track I’m running in (specified before hitting start). I can’t tell whether it’s just using a standard track geometry or using OSM data as well.

[jumbanho]

How funny, I thought I looked for other threads on this and totally missed it, Thanks for connecting the threads.

[jumbanho]

I’m pretty sure that Garmin assumes a standard track shape and then uses your GNSS data to place the orientation of the track. It would be great if it could use surveyed OSM data. Using whatever tags, it would be useful for such an endeavour to have information on lane width, as there are some variations (especially in the US vs the rest of the world).