Proposed features/escape lane

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
< Proposed features(Redirected from Escape lane)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal escape lane is located at Tag:highway=escape.


Escape Lane
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Schumi4ever
Tagging: highway=escape
Applies to: Way, Area
Definition: Emergency lane beside long descending slopes for trucks to stop after brake failure
Rendered as: Red-white checkered area
Drafted on: 2009-05-26
RFC start: 2012-10-12
Vote start: 2012-11-03
Vote end: 2012-11-23

Proposal

A runaway truck ramp, runaway truck lane, emergency escape ramp or truck arrester bed is a traffic device that enables vehicles that are having braking problems to safely stop. It is typically a long, sand or gravel-filled lane adjacent to a road with a steep grade, and is designed to accommodate large trucks. The deep gravel allows the truck's momentum to be dissipated in a controlled and relatively harmless way, allowing the operator to stop it safely.

Rationale

If you are not a driver, you may ask why this is here. But in case you have ever driven any vehicle you know the most important thing there is the brakes. Imagine you are driving downhill and your brakes fade because of excessive use, the only way to stop is using these safety measures. In case any in-car navigation system uses this cartography, the voice can tell the driver "Escape lane 500 metres ahead", something that, as far as I know, no GPS system has any idea of.

Examples

Runaway Truck Ramp.jpg
Runaway Truck Ramp On West Coast NZ.jpg
Fun truck ramp.jpg
A7-Notbremsweg.jpg

Most motorways have them in case of steep and/or long downhill sections.

Type overview

  • Arrester bed: a gravel-filled ramp adjacent to the road that uses rolling resistance to stop the vehicle. The required length of the bed depends on the mass and speed of the vehicle, the grade of the arrester bed, and the rolling resistance provided by the gravel.
  • Gravity escape ramp: a long upwardly-inclined path parallel to the road. A large length is required. Control can be difficult for the driver: problems include rollback after the vehicle stops.
  • Sand pile escape ramp: a short length of loosely piled sand. Problems include large deceleration; sand being affected by weather conditions (moisture and freezing), and; vehicles vaulting and/or overturning after contacting the sand pile.
  • Mechanical-arrestor escape ramp: a proprietary system of stainless-steel nets transversely spanning a paved ramp that engage and retard a runaway vehicle. Ramps of this type are typically shorter than gravity ramps and can have a downhill grade. One such ramp in Avon, CT, USA has an electrically-heated pavement surface to prevent snow and ice accumulation.
  • Alternatives: such as a vehicle arresting barrier.

Tagging

I guess highway=escape is the most suitable. Why? These ways/areas are always related to roads, are always a part of them, are always by their side, are always a complement for them. highway=runaway and highway=escape_lane were also considered, but the first is not too clear and the second one may be too long.

Before the escape itself, add access:lanes=* with yes|yes|escape in the case of 3 lanes, of which the right lane leads to the escape.

Given the fact that, according to Wikipedia, there are several escape lane types, an additional escape:type=* would do enough.

Applies to

Way Ways and Area areas.

Rendering

Just like this, but much smaller squares.

Maybe a red-white checkered way/area is the most appropiate, as a lot of them start with this scheme painted on the road. Furthermore, this color scheme creates a high contrast with any other way now rendered in OSM.

This scheme was also considered, but the colors are too flamboyant.

Comments

Please use the discussion page for comments.

Voting (version 2)

The voting was closed on 23 November 2012.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. after the update=version 2 The key escape:type=* is fine, but I wished that its possible values would have been listed in this proposal, not only an overview of existing types. As was already mentioned a few times, highway=service would not have been a good choice. --Imagic 14:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. sletuffe 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Schumi4ever 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --polderrunner 15:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. And good point from user Imagic about the escape:type=* values. --Al3xius 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 20:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fabi2 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Viking81 21:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bielebog 1:05, 17 November 2012
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. - A escape line cannot be a separate highway, only a additonal feature.--R-michael 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean even keeping in mind there is almost always some physical separation?
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Qurm 09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (R-Michael can you expand your viewpoint in the Discussion?)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. erkinalp 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - I ask around Excuse me, I had mistaken there something.--R-michael 08:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Brogo 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposal has been approved. 13 votes approved the proposal, 0 votes opposed the proposal (Although one vote was originally for opposing and later changed).

Old votes for version 1 of this proposal

Only change with version 2 : it used to propose the use of the type=* tag. Maybe 2 of those no vote could be copied over since they don't mention the fact that using type=* was a problem

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Schumi4ever 14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --PanierAvide 15:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The main tag is fine, but type=* is not a good subkey because it overlaps with the existing use of that key for relations. Should be replaced with escape(_lane)=* or escape(_lane):type=*. --Tordanik 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Agree with Tordanik, type=* should be replaced with something else. --polderrunner 15:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. as suggested on mailing list and discussion page, I prefere highway=service + service=escape_lane --Pieren 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but is there any reason for your preference? I can't see the point in tagging this as service=* --Schumi4ever 16:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See Tordanik's comment. I think everything is fine but the proposed use of type=* conflicts with that "almost reserved" tag for relation. I also would vote no to using highway=service for an escape line, it is too far from what a highway=service is. My vote become yes if you change type to anything else. sletuffe 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. By removing and eventually replacing type=* with something else my vote will change -- Al3xius 11:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I also prefer highway=service + service=escape_lane and maybe access=no --Janko 12:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)