Talk:Key:busway

Not encouraged to use this tag?

I have moved this comment from the main article to the talk page so that it can be discussed.

'PLEASE NOTE that there was no formal proposal for this feature and it is not well established (and probably will never be well established because of the inconsistencies it creates). In parts this page contradicts the current OSM data model. You are NOT encouraged to use this!'

Can someone explain how parts of this page 'contradicts the current OSM data model' and how people are meant to tag bus lanes. If this tag it really redundant then it should be much clearer in how it directs people to the preferred way of tagging this feature.

-- PeterIto 00:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

lanes:psv=* or lanes:bus=* depending on if it's just for buses, or for all psv's (and the variotions with :forward/:backward at the end). "Busway" seems incapable of describing situations, where the lane reserved for buses only is open for all for a part of the day, or, where all traffic (when the bus lane is at the right side of the road) turning right must use the bus lane before they turn. Given the numbers (1530 vs. 704+225+99+152+41+41=1262), we'd have to look at the current uses of busway to see what kind of lanes it has been used for. Alv 06:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

With some investigation, I can say that the biggest uncertainty comes when any way with busway=(opposite_)lane is tagged with lanes=*. Some roads that have two lanes, one for each direction, and the other one is only for buses, are sometimes tagged as busway=opposite_lane, lanes=1, sometimes with lanes=2. I find six lane roads (1 bus+2+2+1 bus) as lanes=2, busway=lane; others with lanes=4, busway=lane. Alv 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there is confusion about how to tag bus lanes. I remember that until recently the lanes wiki page indicated that there was no clear view on whether special purpose lanes such as bus lanes should be included in the total. Is there indeed reasonable consensus that lanes:psv:forward and lanes:psv:backward is the best approach to this? if so then we should put a very strong hint on this page that one should use it. This page should however still be retained to indicate how the busway tag has been used (including any uncertainty about how it was used). I am only asking because we re brewing some new map layers on the subject in ITO Map. PeterIto 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with PeterIto. In keeping with the current revision of Key:lanes, I think we should move to discourage busway=* in the main page here. I've tidied up the old Buses#Bus lanes and tracks section, moving it's how-to examples into the main page here, and made a page for the competing schemes for bus lane tagging over at Bus lanes, all interlinked. However there's significant usage of the older of the two schemes: busway[:(left|right)]=* has 3537 vs. 1726 for lanes:psv[:*ward]=* and 436 for lanes:bus[:*ward]=*, and we must respect that.

In my analysis, lanes:{bus,psv}[:*ward]=* completely implies busway[:(left|right)]=* (provided that oneway=* is used where appropriate so that contraflow-ness can be inferred), gives a useful count in addition, and is compatible with a wider scheme. Let's state it like that.

--achadwick (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Busway 'not rendered' bug report

I have moved this comment to the talk page for discussion.

'Note: busway tagged using the described busway:right and busway:left tags are currently not rendered (see bug #2195).'

Why would this tag be added to Mapnik rendering if use of this tag is discouraged?

-- PeterIto 00:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

2-way bus lanes contiguous with main road surface - help please?!

I have a difficult mapping situation in Rue Professeur Florence, Lyon, France. It's basically a one-way street, but with bus lanes in both directions. Usually such a street would have the bus lane on the right (first lane, next to the curb), but in this case both bus lanes are on the "left", Current the street is mapped as 2 ways, one for the main road surface (one way open to general traffic), and another for (trolley)bus and bicycle (two way). I am not happy with this because on the ground there is no separation at all between the different lanes, and so for instance a bicycle especially can access any place on either side of the street from either direction - there is never any need to go to the end of the street and come back again on the "good" way - but this is what the mapping implies when there are separate ways?

Specifically: how can I map the "forward" busway as being on the left side? Do I have to say busway:right=left + busway:left=opposite_lane + oneway:psv=no ? Does that make sense? If not, then what? Here is a Google Streetview showing the situation. I hope I have explained this correctly: the issue is about contiguous lanes without any physical separations, which I believe should be mapped as a single way, without artificially adding a semantic separation where in the real world there is none.

By the way, the exact same issue arises with bike lanes. The issue being that when there are two-way bike lanes, together, one just side of the street then these are generally not separated from the rest of the street, in practical terms (i.e. when the cyclist can directly cross the street anywhere, without needing to go to the next intersection and then come back again on the main roadway). Sometimes this situation occurs with a low separator, or a line of on-street parking places separating the bike lanes (so it should be cycleway=yes or cycleway=track) but since the cyclist can usual cross pretty much anywhere (between 2 parked cars, etc.) it's desirable to not map as a separate way.

--Neil Dewhurst, Lyon France (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)