What value of lanes ist correct when the lane markings are 4-5m wide?

In the german forum we had discussed that in case of missing lane marking, the key lanes should not be set. The reason is that it depends on the vehicle type and the road width, how many vehicles fit next to each other. Therefore, only width should be tagged here.

The discussion in the english email forum resulted that on streets without lane marking lanes may be tagged as before, but lanes_marked=no should be added. The reason is that markings are rare in many countries. For these countries, the result of the german discussion would be a change to the previous use of lanes.

If there are no markings, that is understandable for me.

It remains unclear how to proceed if there are lane markings, but only a very wide lane for both directions of travel has been marked (see example on mapillary or a wider example in the wiki).

If there are lane markings, then in my opinion the actual number of lanes marked is to be mapped (lanes=1 + lane_marked=yes) and not a value derived from the width, over which one can argue wonderfully. If a lane is wider than about 4m, the width should be specified.

What do you think about that?

I do not see any lane markings in the linked pictures. What do you mean?

On the roads there are right and left solid lines as markings. This marks a lane. Where there are lane markings, it can not lanes_marked = no.

Regarding your linked pictures, they show no lane markings at all, the roadside marks are delineators.

The webpage for road marking in Germany :- https://routetogermany.com/drivingingermany/road-markings

“The white solid line at the edges of the road is called boundary of the road. It is somewhat prominently higher than the road surface (about a half of the centimeter). Parking or stopping on the left of the line is prohibited.”

So those white lines in the picture are the boundary of the highway and indicate restricted parking.

Ok, I see.

Well, I wouldn’t count the markings that margin the road “lane markings”. They serve a different function.

I can’t think of a use case where tagging whether roads have or don’t have white continuous lines at both sides is useful but anyway it would be an own tag that falls into the same category as tagging whether a road has a guard rail or delineators (Leitpfosten) - safety features.

If you find the description in the wiki ambiguous, please feel free to add a clarification.

I think that one thing does not exclude the other.

Right, the white solid lines at the edges of the road mark the boundary of the road. But for me they also define the lane. So I would have set lanes_marked=yes here.

Obviously there was color for the outlines. Therefore, I assume that intentionally only one lane was marked for both directions (lanes=1, lanes:both_way=1).

Everything else would mean that it is not possible to mark a single lane. So it would always be wrong to combine lanes_marked=yes with lanes=1.

Then that should be the wiki. Are you sure?

Based on highway marking practice where I live, I would say there are no lane markings in your example photos. There are, however, “limit lines” or “edge lines” showing the outside edge of the traveled way. Also, in both examples shown, were I to put a lanes=* tag on the way it would be lanes=1 as there is insufficient room for vehicles to get by one another without going over the limit lines.

On the two examples, there are no lanes marked. There is one carriageway with traffic flowing in both directions. Thus, IMHO it would be incorrect to tag the examples as having lanes, there are no lanes. To have lanes you must have a highway that is divided, (into lanes).

In Spain
on talk

The shown streets are very common where I live. The limit lines are there because right to it there is no solid ground.

I would tag them with lanes=2 cause 2 vehicles can pass each other, if you really need any line tagging.
Although you are allowed to drive 100km/h on this streets here noone is really driving that fast. You have to slow down to pass each other.

Actually, there are three different questions here:

1) Is it possible to tag lanes=1 together with lanes_marked=yes if there are white lines on the side (I mean yes)
2) If so, it stays at lanes=1, even if the marked lane is very wide (I mean yes)
3) From when can lanes=2 be tagged, if there are no lines on the road (I mean from about 5.2m)

To 1): A single lane is marked by white lines on both sides (see example here). Roadway sides are also marked by two white lines on both sides. If there are white lines on both sides, there is always a lane marked. That’s why lanes_marked=no is not in the left example above for me. Otherwise there should never be a lanes=1 together with lanes_marked=yes.

To 2): In the example the road authority has then intentionally marked only one lane for both directions, e.g. to lower the speed. That’s why,

  • If there were only lines on the sides of the road then for me the following would be appropriate:
    lanes_marked=yes; lanes=1; lanes:both_ways=1

  • If there is a center line, the following would be correct:
    lanes_marked=yes; lanes=2; lanes:forward=1; lanes:backward=1;

  • If there were no lines, the following would be good:
    lanes_marked=no; if desired one can add lanes=1 or lanes=2, depending on the width of the road (see 3))

To 3): In the EU vehicles may be a maximum of 2.55m wide, in other regions it is similar. Everything under 5.10m + minimal Distance does not allow passing without leaving the road. Therefore, I would not recommend tagging streets under 5.2m with* lanes=2* if there are no lines on the road ore only lines on the sides of the road.

Did you read any of the replies above yours?
Why would anyone want to (or be able to, for that matter) mark a single lane?
Yes, I think lane_markings=yes + lanes=1 makes no sense.

Yes of course I have read the posts. It remained unclear why a roadside marking can not also delimit a lane and thus marked a lane. In this kind of discussion involved only you in saying that it is not possible to mark a single lane.

For me, this has so far been self-evident that a lane can end at side markers. With lanes=2 the side marking marks the right side of the traffic lane - if existing (in UK the left). The left side is marked by the center line.

If ‘lanes=1’ that would not be different for me. In this case the two side marking mark the lane, if side markings exist.

That a single lane is marked as such can be found e.g. at large intersections, where the lane of the left turn cars proceeds over the intersection. There, the lines are dashed to the right and left of the lane and these are not roadside markings. Here’s another example at an airport. The road does not ends behind the side lines. But there is only a single lane.

But I do not want to fight. The topic does not seem to be so interesting for others. I do not have to be able to understand everything that others do.

If roads have right and left road markings but no centerline I will continue to tag ‘lane=1’ and ‘width=*’, just as others do, at least if trucks can not encounter each other without hindrance. The authority obviously wanted that there are only one two-way lane, no two lanes. Otherwise they would have drawn a center line next to the sidelines. That in the English wiki a different example was added does not convince me.

I summarize the previous contributions grouped according to my three questions:

To 1) “Is it possible to tag ‘lanes=1’ together with ‘lanes_marked=yes’ if there are white lines on the side”

West Northeast, BCNorwich and N76 said the lines mark the street sides and indicate restricted parking. I agreed with that.

BCNorwich did not say that a roadside marking does not also delineate a lane. Westnordost and N76 do not see street side lines as a lane marker. n76 refers to the US. For me a roadside marking also describes the lane.

Westnordost considered introducing a new key for roadside lines.

To 2) “If so, it stays at ‘lanes=1’, even if the marked lane is very wide”

No posts except mine. I say yes.

To 3) “From when can ‘lanes=2’ be tagged, if there are no lines on the road”

n76 said he would set lanes=1 when vehicles can not meet without going over that line.

R0bst3r would tag lanes=2 if cars can meet there, even if they have to drive slowly.

Allroads referred to a discussion post in the email forum. There it is written that in Spain ‘lane = 0’ is not possible. As soon as a motor vehicle fits on the street (not motorbike) it is lanes=1, also with oneway=no.

I am of the same opinion, but I would like to pin this on the permissible width of vehicles as an objective measure.

Right. But, these are marked as one-ways.

With this argument, lane=1 would never be possible on two-way-roads, with or without side markers, even on a 2.5m wide road. This is not current practice in OSM.

Why, a 2.5m wide road that is not a one-way would be lanes=1.

Anyway, it is very easy:

lanes: Number of lanes the street is actually used
lane_markings: Whether the mentioned lanes are marked

I don’t understand what you find is the issue with this definition. If you have a road that is 10m wide that is used as a 4-lane highway, then it does not matter what is drawn on the sides of the road.* Routers and other applications are not interested in that but in the actual possible throughput and thus importance of the road. The information value of tagging lane_markings at all is much smaller than tagging the number of usable lanes.

Because there is a default value for lanes. This is usually lanes=2. But if the roads are so narrow that passing regular vehicles becomes difficult, then the default value is wrong. To override it I have to tag lanes=1.

I suspect that under lanes you understand only lanes that allow an unobstructed ride in one direction. So is the definition in German road laws (StVO §7). Note that lanes in OSM, unlike the law, is the sum of all lanes, including bi-directional lanes. If lanes:both_ways=1, lanes:forward=0, and lanes:backward=0 then lanes=1.

I wanted to clarify here, when lanes refers to marked lanes and when to not marked and where the boundaries between lanes=1 and lanes=2. Both are not clear from the wiki. I thought, if there are road markings, then only marked lanes count. In German, it is also called a “wide lane”, where narrow cars can drive side by side.

But I have found in the German law text.

To Question 1):

In Germany are drawn between lanes dashed line (“Leitlinie”, sign 340) or solid line (“Sperrlinie”, sign 295). The side line is also the “Sperrlinie” (solid line, sign 295). Thus, solid lines nr 295 on both sides can mark a lane.

What I have just learned by reading german StVO: The marking of the lanes is optional in Germany. By law, “lanes are merely the part of a lane that a car/truck needs for unhindered driving along the lane” (§7 StVO). So you’re right that two white lines do not mean it just has to be one lane. It can, but not it has to be. I was wrong.

So, if a 3m street has two side lines, then lanes=1 + lane_markings=yes ok. For a 6m wide street with two side lines and no center line, it would be lanes=2 + lane_markings=no.

To Question 2) and 3)

So my third question about the border between lanes=1 and 2 also concerns roads with side lines (Queston 2).

My remaining problem is that I always have discussions when I tag a 4-5m street with lanes=1. Apparently, there are routing services that avoid these roads. The argument is always, “I fit with my small car next to another small car”. My argument is “I do not fit next to another truck with my truck”. It’s little bit frustrating. Who is right now? The legal text “unhindered ride” refers to all vehicles, not just narrow passenger cars.

I would like to have a hint in the wiki that is as objectively measurable as possible.