[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme
sg.forum at gmx.de
Sat Mar 16 23:18:32 UTC 2019
In general, I agree with Martin.
Am 16.03.2019 um 23:43 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
> On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> these tags are stating different things though:
> How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way:
> oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along this way A->B
> and B->A
> exactly the same case if there is any of the tags:
No, not exactly the same: cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=no
implies oneway:bicycle=no, but no vice versa.
cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=[-1] does not imply
oneway:bicycle=no (maybe oneway:bicycle=no -1), since there could be
edge cases, where a cyclist could use the cycleway to get for B to A,
but has no option to go from A to B.
> They tell me the same thing. The point of this discussion is what the
> *preferred* method should be not how many different ways there are to
> tag the same piece of information. My point is simply why should
> mappers be told to prefer the less used and less likely to be consumed
> option rather than the much more common option?
>> cycleway:left:oneway=-1 on the other hand is describing a dedicated
>> cycling infrastructure
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does, in principle.
> What infrastructure, if any, is provided for cyclists is described by
> the cycleway=* tag. So in this case if that tag is accompanied by:
> then there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure.
I'm confused. Did you mean shared_lane? cycleway=shared has been
relieved by segregated=no or it was assumed that cycleways are shared
Any way, that only means that cycleway:left:oneway=-1 implies
oneway:bicycle=no; again IF bicycle can go both ways. (otherwise it
implies oneway:bicycle=no -1)
And amusing you did mean shared_lane, it is kind of the default, and
usually requires some kind marking to make able to map it.
More information about the Tagging