[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Andrew Davidson theswavu at gmail.com
Sat Mar 16 23:07:07 UTC 2019


On 15/3/19 8:03 pm, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> On topic: I don't have a great preference for either tagging scheme (they're
> both a bit ungainly, I've found them both a bit of a PITA to support in
> cycle.travel's tag parsing). cycleway=opposite_lane is concise but unclear.

That's interesting to hear. I've always thought it was fairly simple. I 
picture it as having a oneway=yes A----->B

cycleway=opposite

There is no specific cycling infrastructure in either direction but 
bicycles can travel A->B and B->A

cycleway=opposite_lane

There is no cycling infrastructure for cyclist riding A->B but there is 
a lane for cyclist riding B->A (and cyclists can ride in both directions)

cycleway=lane

Cyclist can ride A->B and they are provided with a lane

cycleway=lane
oneway:bicycle=no

Cyclists can ride in both directions and both directions have cycling 
infrastructure provided.

As you've actually consumed the data I'm interested to know what 
problems you have found as I think that this is one thing that is 
missing from most tagging debates on this list. It's all very nice to 
have the world's greatest tagging scheme but it's useless if no one can 
consume it at the end.

> Regardless, both are in widespread use so the wiki should document both.
> 

I don't think this is about if the alternative method should be 
documented. The problem is more that the wiki was changed to suggest the 
that alternative is now the recommended approach. By all means document 
the alternative but you should also be honest and also document how rare 
it is in comparison to the dominant method.



More information about the Tagging mailing list