Proposal talk:Divider

Untitled

• Ways with a physical divider have to be mapped as two separates ways ... --PhilippeP 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There exists single carriageways with one lane per driving direction and a small physical divider in between (concrete barrier or dots with cat's eye plates standing upwards) to prevent drivers to cross a double solid line. I think these small streets should not be mapped as two separate parallel ways. --BerndR 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm, if there's a physical barrier then there are 2 carriageways - even if only one lane in each direction. So it's not a single carriageway. I know of a few dual carriageways with only one lane in each direction. Richard B 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • a solid line with "remebering-dots" is IMHO no physical barrier. And for this lines this divider-tag would be very useful cbm 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• I like the idea, because in many situations it can save complicated junction/turning-restriction-relations :) --cbm 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• i don't see a use for this at all. if the road is divided into two, whether by a concrete wall, a steel fence, a row of permanent cones (yes, we have those in nz), or just a low kerb, the effect is the same: vehicles are not allowed to cross. in which case, there should be two separate ways, one for each direction. this is redundant as far as i can see. for the occasion where there are gaps (e.g. for emergency vehicles, etc.) then an appropriately tagged way should be drawn between the two. Myfanwy 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• this tag does not give a means of describing where the divider is placed, or how many lanes are on one side of it. I propose that we keep with the idea of seperate ways for divided cariageways. --Mungewell 20:43, 3 April 2008 (BST)
• I know this is an old discussion, but I realy feel that there's something here, especially if you think about the situation of a solid line dividing the opposite lanes and no physical obstacle. In Romania is not uncommon for a way to have such a solid line in the middle for some months and later on to e changed to be turned into a discontinued line (allowing u turns and left turning). It could save a lot of time and editing when the change happens (just edit the way and change the divider value from solid_line to interrupted_line) and would prevent addition and removal of ways, when it happens. -- EddyP 03:01 18 March 2009 (EET)

Untitled 2

• Atop the whole issue of "when do you even use this?", the `flexible_bollard` value is a self-contradictory trolltag as flexible or breakaway devices are channelizers, not bollards. It should be changed to `channelizer` instead, or the UK equivalent thereof. --UrbanUnPlanner (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I have only revised this proposal because I keep running into circumstances where it's appropriate to use, where the painted lines widen into a painted area which is too large to ignore but still offers no physical separation. I've had brief look online regarding "flexible bollard" vs "channelizer", and it initially appears that "flexible bollard" is a well understood and often used term. For example there are many safety websites which offer to sell flexible bollards. It also appears from my research that a "channelizer" primarily refers to a movable object, which is somewhat like a traffic cone in the shape of a column, whereas a "flexible bollard" seems to mean a plastic object which is fixed into place by bolts, but is still flexible enough to cause little to no damage to a vehicle, unlike the common use of the word "bollard" which refers to a metal object which will cause heavy damage to vehicles. --Geordannik (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The cycleway:*:separation scheme already uses the value flex_post for this purpose. It would be nice to have a consistent value across tags. -- kadiwa (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

    It was being discussed Proposal talk:Separation#Bollard_vs_flexible_panel
    —— Kovposch (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  • It's an officially used term "The options for segregation features can include flexible bollards, low height separators (typically less than 0.3 metres vertical height) or an intermittent raised kerb." https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/4b59ebc3-065b-467f-8b43-09d2802f91c8 https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/4b59ebc3-065b-467f-8b43-09d2802f91c8?inline=true#page=31
    —— Kovposch (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Updating

• divider=* : "Divider" is used for separating all parts of roads, including travel lanes, edge lines, and bike lanes. It's not limited to centerlines between 2 traffic directions. Should use another word.
  • Please see newer Proposal:Separation for separation:*=* and marking:*=* first. Unrelated now, there is handrail:center=* . Logically, they could be combined and extended into separation:centre=* and marking:centre=* , fixing the American Vs British English spelling mistake at the same time.
  • Alternatively, lane_markings=* could be extended somehow. As lane_markings=* is mostly used for lanes=2 or lanes=1 , the effect is almost entirely overlapping. However, lane_markings:centre=* could still be proposed if desired.
  • divider=1 : This can't distinguish solid Vs dashed line (including short vs long dashed line)
  • divider=2  : Can't distinguish one-side solid & one-side dashed lines as asked in the article discussion. We could discussed there with others. Talk:Key:divider#Parallel_solid_and_dashed_lines
  • divider=3 : In Japan, there are sets of a single solid white line sandwiched in a pair of solid yellow lines. Consequently, will need *:colour=* somehow. https://trafficnews.jp/post/121539
  • I'm thinking it's better to have *:centre:left=* , *:centre:right=* , and *:centre:both=* anyway. Repeating sides is used in cycleway:*:separation:*=* .
    • *:centre:both=solid_line , *:centre:both=dashed_line : This means *=double_solid_line , *=triple_solid_line , and *=double_dashed_line don't need to be invented further
    • *:centre:left=solid_line + *:centre:left=dashed_line : Avoids having to determine the pattern in *=solid-dashed_line vs *=dashed-solid_line confusingly
• divider=area : Simply use *:lanes:both_ways=* . It can still be used when it's narrower than a lane. The only difference would be you don't need to count it as a lanes:both_ways=* in that case.
• divider=flexible_bollard : I would directly use the 2773 bollard=flexible , which is documented on Tag:barrier=bollard and Key:bollard . Calling them "flexible bollard" is not much different from saying it's a type of "bollard". OSM doesn't have to use words in exactly the same meaning as everyday life. On the other hand, they can be called bollards in UK officially.
  • "retroreflective self-righting bollards (RSRBs) " : "The bollard is attached to its base by a flexible connection " https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c0650e5274a7202e19128/traffic-bollards-low-level.pdf
  • https://resources.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/resource/files/field/pdf/faq/2018/6/5/sd-12-39a-flexible-bollard-non-illuminated-and-solar-powered.pdf
  • https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/file/roads-and-transport-connecting-oxfordshire/hsd-1200-015.pdf ref https://www.wattspolyurethane.co.uk/product/manchester-impact-flex/
• The 2 above can't handle the case of delineators being installed on wide medians either. Therefore separation:*=* is more comprehensive, when combined with buffer:*=* from key:cycleway:buffer .
• *:fill=* : Agree with making use of this suffix somehow. marking:*=barred_area in Proposal:Separation#Symbolic_separation:_marking is both improper terminology, and unable to show dashed-border hatched areas (standard in UK).
  • *:fill=hatched , *:fill=crosshatched : Unsure what exactly you mean, but unfortunately these 2 are interchangeable for road markings. It doesn't follow the expected meaning of "crosshatch" being pairs of lines crossing each other. I don't know if it's another American English quirk.
    • "yellow diagonal crosshatch markings" https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/fig3b_05_longdesc.htm
    • 2.7 Hatched markings https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c4ace6ded915d38a0611abc/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf#page=24
  • *:fill=filled : Seems awkward. crossing:markings=solid was discussed for, so can have *:fill=solid here.

—— Kovposch (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Numerical values

• I dont like the concept of tagging a "Numeric value" as the number of stripes. As the number of stripes may have different meaning in different juristications. So we end up shoveling the burden on how to interpret this down the pipeline to data consumers. I'd rather like to have something like "non_crossable_legally" "non_crossable_physical" and in a different tag describe the physical appearance of the divider. Flohoff (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)