Render highway=passing_place

[boothym]

Over 12,000 uses as a node: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place

Plenty of them in the Scottish Highlands, example: https://goo.gl/maps/vriCnHkdvCr

Perhaps it can be rendered as a bulge in the road, similar to a turning circle but longer and narrower? Then in future it could be rendered on just one side of the road, if the tagging is updated (e.g. passing_place=left/right/both).

[SomeoneElseOSM]

"highway=passing_place" tends to be tagged on a node, with no idea of "right" or "left". The approach I took in a related style was simply to render in the same way as turning circles:

It's a bit stylized, but gets the point across. That tile is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/56.6191/-4.9298 , just down the road from your Google Streetview link.

[boothym]

That looks ok, although maybe on thinner roads in this style the turning circle might look too big. Really need to see it rendered and also compared with a longer stretched version as well.

[dieterdreist]

2016-09-21 0:46 GMT+02:00 boothym [email protected]:

That looks ok, although maybe on thinner roads in this style the turning
circle might look too big. Really need to see it rendered and also compared
with a stretched version as well.

this looks way too important for this kind of feature (IMHO). Isn't this
about the amount of lanes? We don't show lanes in general in this style.

[SomeoneElseOSM]

@dieterdreist No, this is not "about the amount of lanes". It's about displaying the only place where two wide vehicles can pass each other, possibly for miles.

You could argue that this style is "only designed for cities", and while some changes clearly reflect that (see the discussion on #747 for example) I don't think anyone has been quite so explicit before.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 21 set 2016, alle ore 10:19, SomeoneElseOSM [email protected] ha scritto:

@dieterdreist No, this is not "about the amount of lanes". It's about displaying the only place where two wide vehicles can pass each other, possibly for miles.

so if they meet in the middle they have to agree who will backup several miles with his wide vehicle? Or are they typically leaving the carriageway to resolve?

You could argue that this style is "only designed for cities", and while some changes clearly reflect that (see the discussion on #747 for example) I don't think anyone has been quite so explicit before.

while I agree that it works better for dense areas, it should still be somehow usable also in rural settings, agreed.
I was commenting on the visual representation, IMHO those "blobs" are too obtrusive, if this is a rare but important situation, maybe a small unobtrusive signature (icon) would be more suitable (something as small and colourless as the gate icon)? Or a thickening, but much less than the one given as example

[jeisenbe]

The documentation for this feature is not so clear. While the description in the infobox says "A passing place on a single track road", the rest of the page suggest it could be used on wider roads:

"Location of a widening on a road allowing oncoming vehicles to pass each other, or allowing slower traffic to be passed if said slower vehicle halts at the passing place. Also known as a turnout."

As noted above, there is no indication about which side of the road has the turnout/passing place, so we cannot render it in a very helpful way.

Since we do not render any indication of lanes or width of roads, or places where overtaking is allowed, I don't think we can show this feature in a reasonable way.

[SomeoneElseOSM]

The documentation for this feature is not so clear. While the description in the infobox says "A passing place on a single track road", the rest of the page suggest it could be used on wider roads:

Usage, at least wherever I've looked in OSM, seems to be consistent.

As noted above, there is no indication about which side of the road has the turnout/passing place, so we cannot render it in a very helpful way.

That's simply not true, as I showed back in 2016.

By all means say "we don't want to render this now because we don't have the develop resource" or "because it doesn't it doesn't fit with the road features that we currently show" or "we believe that the suggested rendering will confuse users without a map key, which we don't have", but please don't say that you can't render it, when an example of how you can has already been given.

[jeisenbe]

I appologise for being unclear. When I wrote "we cannot render it in a very helpful way" I did not mean it was impossible to render this feature, but that the rendering possibilities would not be helpful to general map users, and might be confusing. If someone wants to submit a PR or suggest a different possible rendering, that is still possible. (While there is a key to this style, it is buried in the Openstreetmap.org wiki, and not widely known.)

…

On 3/15/20, SomeoneElseOSM ***@***.***> wrote: > The documentation for this feature is not so clear. While the description > in the infobox says "A passing place on a single track road", the rest of > the page suggest it could be used on wider roads: Usage, at least wherever I've looked in OSM, seems to be consistent. > As noted above, there is no indication about which side of the road has > the turnout/passing place, so we cannot render it in a very helpful way. That's simply not true, as I showed back in 2016. By all means say "we don't want to render this now because we don't have the develop resource" or "because it doesn't it doesn't fit with the road features that we currently show" or "we believe that the suggested rendering will confuse users without a map key, which we don't have", but please don't say that you _can't_ render it, when an example of how you _can_ has already been given. -- You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #2356 (comment)

[polarbearing]

Given the feature being in the same category as a turning circle I find the proposed bulge not confusing at all. How did you test that this option is "not ... helpful to general map users"?

Please re-open.

[boothym]

the rest of the page suggest it could be used on wider roads:

Does it? It says "allowing oncoming vehicles to pass each other" - on a "normal" width road passing places don't exist because they aren't needed, as there is enough room for cars to pass each other in two way traffic.

There is a secondary function of allowing slower vehicles (tractors etc) to pull off to the side and allow cars past.

The documentation for this feature is not so clear.

Well, we can easily fix the documentation. 😉

would not be helpful to general map users, and might be confusing.

Could you explain how it might be confusing?

This feature is now used 22,500 times in OSM - an increase of 10k since I posted this 3 and a half years ago.

[pnorman]

I'd have no issues with a rendering like @SomeoneElseOSM showed

[jeisenbe]

Reopened. Is anyone interested in working on this? @SomeoneElseOSM? @boothym?

[polarbearing]

30.6K