# Talk:Lanes

## Node features

Can this be applied to tagged nodes on a highway, for example traffic lights which are only applicable to a subset of the lanes? --achadwick 13:31, 23 May 2012 (BST)

Hmm... I would say yes, if and only if the node is not an intersection of ways. However this was never discussed. --Imagic 15:17, 23 May 2012 (BST)

## Generalities-with-exceptions pattern?

It seems most natural to use the lanes scheme as a way of marking very occasional lane-specific exceptions to a general rule applicable to all of a highway. Hypothetically;

lanes:forward=3
maxspeed=50 mph
maxspeed:lanes:forward=40 mph||

In this case, the undefined lane-values should inherit the general maxspeed=50 mph, I think. Is that the intent? If so, the main page should clarify it. --achadwick 13:41, 23 May 2012 (BST)

Yes, this was the idea. The accepted proposal contained a section about default values, but obviously this information got lost.--Martinq 14:44, 23 May 2012 (BST)
It seems I have to update the article... this was indeed lost. I'll try to update the article within the next days. --Imagic 15:19, 23 May 2012 (BST)
Better now? --Imagic 10:09, 24 May 2012 (BST)

## Better explain how to add multiple values for turn lanes?

Could you please explain how adding multiple values for turn lanes work? Say I have two (forward) turn lanes, lane 1 with allowed direction: left, slight_left, straight; lane2 with straight, slight_right, right. how would i tag this? thanks, jose

You separate each lane-dependent value with | and if one lane-value needs to contain more than one value you separate them with ; . Your example would be; turn:lanes=through;left;slight_left|through;right;slight_right . Hope this helps. --Imagic 06:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Damn, I was always seeing two pairs of X|X, instead of one X, one X+Y and one Y. Also, please what is the difference between (turn) straight and through? Or are they synonymous (at least for one direction ways)?
You're welcome. Regarding straight vs. through: the value straight is not specified, only through is. So please only use through. I used the value straight right at the beginning when I started the :lanes-proposal, but dropped it in favour of through after some discussions. BTW: do you know the JOSM style Styles_Lane_features-style.mapcss? It's really great to verify your edits. It also started to support the proposed key change however only the positive values (like left, right) and not the proposed negative values (like not_right, not_left). Give it a try! If you intend to use the key change:lanes=* let me know and I can provide you with a patched version of the JOSM style which supports the proposed negative values. --Imagic 08:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. No need for allowed/forbidden values for now and that CSS for JOSM seems very useful!

## "Turn lanes as relation" proposal made obsolete?

Did I understand it correctly that now Relations/Proposed/turn_lanes proposal is obsolete?

I guess you have to ask the creator of that proposal. Info from taginfo: turn:lanes is today (29.11.2012) used about 7600 times and was proposed February 2012. The relation is used about 6600 times and was proposed March 2011. --Imagic 08:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

## More real-world examples

I think we need more real world examples, I started tagging a nice (but not too complex) junction with detailed bing coverage here -- could you possibly take a look at it and provide feedback? Also, I see you're very familiar with the subject so maybe you'd wanna join the discussion with MapFactor devs about the possibility of adding turn-lanes display to Navigator Free software. This could be the very first navigation software that could make use of the lanes info.

I started to create some motorway examples based on aerial images here. Currently I'm concentrating on motorway tagging, because 1) information about turning lanes is very important there (imagine you missed an exit on a motorway) and 2) tagging of junctions is still highly disputed.
But I also thought about junctions like yours and created some time ago a proposal that should make things a lot easier regarding turning restrictions. But as I can see you already mapped according to it - just without the highway=junction-area - so no news for you in there! Still may you have a look at the proposal of highway=junction and comment on it?
Regarding your tagging of the junction you provided: looks quite fine, but contains some errors. As this is pretty hard to explain here maybe you could contact me directly?
Regarding Navigator Free: another forum? Another login? I think I already have enough of this ;-) But regarding your last comment there: turn:lanes is not equal turn:lanes:forward - only if oneway=yes! And regarding the connectivity relation: I'm planning to write a proposal for it in the next weeks. Any feedback is very welcome. --Imagic 11:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

## Define 'forwards'

I'm having a bit of trouble with the tag lanes:forward and lanes:backward. With a two-way road, which way is "forwards"? For example, a set of traffic lights where the side approaching the intersection is divided into two lanes, one for turning left and the other for straight through/turn right. The side of the road leaving the intersection is a single lane. So do i put lanes=3 and turn:lanes=left|through;right|through with lanes:forward=2 and lanes:backward=1 ?

Thalass (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The :forward and :backward key suffixes always refer to the direction of the osm data entity / way. It's explained on Forward & backward, left & right. The ways consist of an ordered list of nodes. If the way has been drawn towards the intersection, then your example would be lanes=3 lanes:forward=2 lanes:backward=1 turn:lanes:forward=left. If the way was draw in the other direction, you flip the :backward and :forward suffixes. Alv (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It has been a little while since lanes (and turns) have been introduced. But I do wonder, is it adopted by any end-user application thus far, eg. navigation software? -- MrManny (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OsmAnd uses the number of lanes to display the preferred lanes to drive on (see http://www.appsapk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OsmAnd-Maps-Navigation-1.jpg as an example). I don't think it uses turn:lanes due to its low adoption, but it counts the number of lanes from the way segment before and the segments after a highway split.--Sanderd17
you are right. The corresponding issue is http://code.google.com/p/osmand/issues/detail?id=1448 --Zuse (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

## Crossing with a designated lane for bicycles

Shouldn't this be

bicycle:lanes=yes|use_sidepath|designated|yes

It is not explicitly forbidden to use that lane.

I guess this depends on the country and other circumstances. Access tags should be discussed on the appropriate wiki page. Thanks. --Imagic (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

## Crossing with a designated lane for bicycles (second issue)

The page says

``` lanes=3
turn:lanes=left|through|through|right
vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no|yes
bicycle:lanes=yes|no|designated|yes
```

This is in contradiction with the Vehicle types page. According to that page bicycle is a vehicle and automobile is the general term for all motorised vehicles. Hence this example should be:

...

``` automobile:lanes=yes|yes|no|yes
bicycle:lanes=yes|no|designated|yes
```

--voschix (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction. The tag bicycle is more specific than vehicle, so first we forbid all kind of vehicles on the third lane and afterwards - because "bicycle" is more specific - we specify the third lane as designated to bicycles. In fact you have to use "vehicle" and not "automobile", because otherwise all kind of non-motorized vehicles would be allowed on the third lane, which is not the case. And last but not least: I have never seen the tag automobile used anywhere and a quick look on taginfo shows that I am not alone ;-) --Imagic (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

### Another issue

Excluding bicycle lanes but not HOV, bus lanes or turn lanes breaks lane guidance. Bicycle facilities often have more than one lane and it's increasingly common to not have bicycle lanes as the rightmost or leftmost lane. Not being able to include these with lane tagging explicitly breaks accurate description of the lane layout. If width of the lane is a concern, tag for lane widths, don't exclude bicycle lanes. Paul Johnson (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right, this is an unsolved issue, if the bicycle lane is not part of a vehicle lane and of significant width like shown in the example. Cause to change an existing tag is no prefered solution, I guess we need a new picture for small width bicycle lanes, as part of vehicle lanes, and a new example for separated bicycle lanes with full vehicle width. Have you ever thought about discussing this at tagging mailing list ? --Robybully (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ran into the chicken-egg problem there. Nobody wanted to work out the problem because nobody's tagging for completeness on lanes. Nobody's tagging for completeness on lanes because the wiki says specifically not to do so. Paul Johnson (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

## Time of day

How can we tag turn lanes and lanes counts for each direction which change based on the time of day? Aharvey (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Using Conditional restrictions should work for that, i.e. using the lanes:[forward/backward:]conditional and turn:lanes:[forward/backward:]conditional keys. --Tordanik 15:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

## Where to split

Where do we split a way when a lane is added? Sometimes before an intersection a turn lane is added on the side, but it doesn't get lane markings right away (although there might be a sign on the side of the road indicating which direction each lane goes). With respect to the lanes suffix, do we add the lane as soon as it is full-width, or do we wait until there are road markings separating it? And if we add it right away, is there a way to mark that the lane markings do not start right away? Germyb (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)