[Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
osmu715371 at gmx.de
Wed Feb 25 22:56:52 UTC 2015
Am 25.02.2015 um 22:20 schrieb Hubert:
> The implied problem in your question is how to interpret a (main) tag on an osm_way. Does it only apply to the carriageway/driving lanes or to the whole street which also includes cycleways, sidewalks, etc ? Just consider the width=* or lanes=* tags.
Is there any propsal for width?
lanes=* is a good example. It does only count the number of lanes for
cars, those for bicycles are not counted and at bicycle:lanes=* each
bicycle lane is associated to a lane for motor vehicles.
> Yet, I wouldn't go so far as to declare it "wrong" tagging, but I personally would not tag oneway:bicycle=no on such streets as describes by you. Instead I would add cycleway:oneway=no to the osm_way and avoid the issue.
I am using a tagging like
if it was only applied to a single side.
if it was applied to all cycleways. If there is only
cycleway:right=track, the above cycleway:oneway=no would mean the same
> (On cycleway=opposite_track I'd use cycleway:oneway=-1)
Sounds good, but may be there exists something like a default? I cannot
find any combinations with taginfo. But may be this is interesting. For
cycleway=opposite the majority of uses is without oneway:bicycle. So
there may be that oneway case included as default, too.
But if you think about the tagging, than oneway=* applies to everything
of the highway except pedestrians. So if there is an exception to the
way you would look in second instance for those oneway:*=* tags and make
your decision. In the other case you have to check for each possibility
what mappers may have tagged on the way e.g.
Whether it applies to the carriageway or a cycle track may be concluded
from other tags, too. For example cycleway=opposite implies
oneway:bicycle is applied to the carriageway and a penalty for cars.
cycleway:freedom_of_choice=no or cycleway:obligatory=yes would imply
that oneway:bicycle does not matter for cars.
More information about the Tagging