Proposed features/Passing places

The Feature Page for the approved proposal Key:passing_places can be located at Key:passing_places.

The Feature Page for the approved proposal Tag:highway=passing_place can be located at Tag:highway=passing_place.

Passing_places
Status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Bruce89
Tagging:	passing_places=yes/no
Applies to:	linear/node
Definition:	*
Rendered as:	Alternating white/road coloured line
Draft start:	2007-02-28
RFC start:	2007-02-28
Vote start:	2008-06-15
Vote end:	2008-08-02

Modified-by

Alv

Contents 1 Background 2 Main Proposal 2.1 Applies to 2.2 Values 2.3 Default values 2.4 Optional Proposal: Rendering 2.5 Current usage 2.6 Translations 3 Discussion 4 Voting

Background

In Scotland, there are a great many roads which are narrow with passing places. A new tagging scheme is required for these roads, as not all such roads roads are unclassified. For instance:

• A830 56.895° N 5.766° W (trunk, has been upgraded)
• A861 56.762° N 5.757° W (primary)
• A886 55.957° N 5.178° W (primary)
• B836 55.993° N 5.094° W (secondary)
• B8002 56.188° N 5.521° W (secondary, picture above)

These all have have passing places (the A830 has been upgraded this year). See Single track road on Wikipedia for more details.

Equally constructed roads exist in other countries, too, even if their numbers have diminished greatly over the past 20 years. Most likely they have been or might eventually be widened to 1.5 lanes which equals about 4 meters; a motorcar and hgv have then just enough room to pass each other.

Routing software could apply a higher cost function to one lane roads without passing places or with passing places very far apart. Default value is unknown.

Location of a single passing place of equal importance than that of traffic signals, so it would fit under highway=passing_place on a node. Side of a passing place is unimportant for now.

As it was mentioned in the talk page heres a clarification: This proposal has nothing to do with three lane sections of two lane highways to help overtaking of slower vehicles.

Main Proposal

Applies to

which is a highway of any type and has lanes=1

passing_places=yes or passing_places=no

along and on a highway

highway=passing_place.

Passing place nodes might exist on any highway which has lanes=* with any value below 2, e.g. 1 or 1.5, likely if frequent hgv traffic is present.

Values

• passing_places=yes Way has frequent passing places, which might or might not be mapped individually. If intersections facilitating passing are frequent, they qualify as make-do passing places.
• passing_places=no Passing places don't exist frequently or at all along this way.

• highway=passing_place A passing place is at this node

Narrow roads usually have passing places, so this proposal asks that roads such as this should be tagged passing_places=yes. I am personally using this tag now, along with lanes=1.

— Bruce89 22:56, 13 April 2007 (BST)

Default values

• Where the tag lanes has a value of over 1:

passing_places=no or "not applicable"; passing oncoming motorcar traffic is assumed to be possible without passing places when number of lanes is over 1. Hgv traffic on narrow road, where lanes < 2, is unlikely except to destination and won't affect the tagging.

• Where the tag lanes has a value of 1:

If it's a highway=track: passing_places=no

Any other highway: passing_places=yes

These ought to be globally the most common cases?

Optional Proposal: Rendering

On Proposed features an alternating white/road color dashed line is mentioned but nothing was mentioned anywhere in this proposal.

Current usage

Browsing the Tagwatch I found only 44 uses of passing_places=* and one passing_place=true.

Translations

sv: Mötesplats, Sign: a sign on a pole with a "M" on it.

fi: Kohtauspaikka, Sign: a smaller blue sign with white arrows up and down

Discussion

Please use the talk page.

Voting

RFC message was sent to talk mailing list on 9 January 2008 and the vote open message on 20 March 2008.

Voting was open but no one voted and proposal was modified so voting is now open again. Voting is divided, please state separately if you approve or oppose the proposed tags and if you approve, whether you support or oppose the rendering.

• I approve this proposal. on the tags. I oppose the rendering, unnecessary visual clutter. Alv 09:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. in favor of lanes=number_of_lanes which is more general. --PhilippeP 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. on the tags. I have no position on rendering, up to the map maker. MikeCollinson 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. rendering can be debated. pullouts and turnouts should be used as alternate names. --Nickvet419 11:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., thanks to Alv for clearing up a few things here. Bruce89 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., could be useful for navigation devices some day (makes it possible to calculate distance to next passing place perhaps) Lazzko 08:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Sergionaranja 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., on the tags and the rendering --Zottel 14:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Vrabcak 06:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--JND 11:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)