[Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren
marc.gemis at gmail.com
Thu Dec 25 19:51:37 UTC 2014
I don't agree,
the definition says:
Use *cycleway*=opposite for situations where cyclists are permitted to
travel in both directions on a road which is one-way for normal traffic, in
situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for
cyclists. In practice there is typically a very short section of road,
sometimes called a "cycle plug", where cycles are excepted from the
no-entry by means of a short lane separated by an island. These roads
should normally also be tagged with oneway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway>=yes and also oneway:bicycle
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle>=no. Streets like
this are common in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. They are rarer in
the UK, but are becoming more common due to a recent change in road signage
allowing no entry signs qualified with "except cycles".
So only when there is a short separate lane for bi-directional traffic, one
should use cycleway=opposite. It should never be used in the countries that
are mentioned above, where the whole street is bi-directional.
I think this is one of the most misused tags in Belgium.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
> cycleway=opposite is useful for marking that cyclists may drive in both
> direction, \
> but there is no marked contraflow lane (for streets with contraflow lane
> there is
> cycleway=opposite_lane tag).
> 2014-12-25 20:36 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:
>> I never understood the cycleway=opposite. I would really need a picture
>> of a situation where you need it.
>> IMHO you do not have to use this tag on a oneway street where cyclists
>> can drive in both directions, but on their own side. So I think your
>> requirement to always add it to a oneway street that allows cyclists in
>> both directions is wrong.
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Ulrich Lamm <ulamm.brem at t-online.de>
>>> Dear mapping and cycling friends
>>> as that article is in German, it is questionable, if the international
>>> mailig list is a good adress,
>>> but in German language, I've found only local mailing lists.
>>> As one can hear and read in discussions, and as is visible from the
>>> results of mapping, a lot of mappers know very little about the cycling
>>> facilities, they map.
>>> And the WIki in all, the German Wiki in special, is a bit labyrinthical.
>>> Several guidelines are not complete, some describe only one of the serious
>>> schemes or even suggest(ed) a scheme that can't be called serious.
>>> I've tried to accomplish and harmonize articles, but some people don't
>>> like that and reverted them.
>>> Now, as subpages of my user page, there are two more exact versions of
>>> "DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren":
>>> kartieren/revision from 23 December 2014
>>> is an attempt of a comprehensive explanation of real cycling facilities
>>> and a comprehensive presentation of the tagging possibilities. On 25
>>> Dezember I've done some lesser revisions.
>>> kartieren/approach from 24 December 2014
>>> explains the reality of cycling facilities, but on the guidelines only
>>> the biggest mistakes are corrected and only the biggest nonsens is deleted.
>>> Who refuses to a comprehensive presentation of reality and serious
>>> tagging schemes, has to accept the reproach to submit to ways of tagging
>>> that inhibit optimal routing and correct rendering.
>>> Merry Xmas,
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging