[OSM-newbies] one way for cars, two way for bikes

[Dave F.]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>   
>> Chris Mcnally wrote:
>>     
>>> I'm trying to map a section of road where motor traffic can only travel
>>> in one direction, but on one side of the road, sometimes separated by
>>> parked cars, is a two lane bike lane for cyclists to travel in either
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> highway = residential
>>> oneway = true
>>> cycleway = opposite
>>>
>>> Would this be the correct set of tags for it? From the wiki, it seems
>>> that long description for cycleway=opposite covers the lane in both
>>> directions for cyclists. The other two cycleway=opposite_lane and
>>> opposite_track are less clear to me. Do they imply one way for cyclists
>>> as well, but in the opposite way? Or two way for cyclists?
>>>
>>> If someone could explain this I can updated the wiki perhaps even with a
>>> photo.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Chris M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane
>>
>> I see opposite_lane as being on the same piece of road surface as the
>> highway, but separated with a painted line.
>> opposite_track having a more substantial separation such as a kerb,
>> bollards or grass verge.
>>
>> The cases of cycleway = opposite that I've come across in the UK are for
>> slow moving residential streets, usually
>> cul-de-sacs for motor vehicles but allow an exit for bikes & pedestrians.
>>
>>     
>
> And the vast majority of these in the UK, if not all of them, are not
> one-way streets at all. They're a normal street with a bollard or kerb
> or fire-gate with a small section of cycle path, or a small section of
> oneway (quite possibly less than a couple of metres, or even just a no
> entry sign) with an opposite_lane cycleway to allow bikes in both
> directions.
>
> Dave
>
>   
Doesn't that make them cul-de-sacs?

Cheers
Dave F.