[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme
sg.forum at gmx.de
Sun Mar 17 12:41:53 UTC 2019
sorry, that mail 5min ago, was send by accident.
Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
> On 17/3/19 10:18 am, Hubert87 wrote:
>> 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)
> Nice straw man you've made there.
I resent that statement.
> I didn't say that either of those forms of tagging imply the other.
No, I did!
> What I said was that both forms indicate that cyclists can ride in
> both directions and asked why should mappers be advised to use the
> more rare, less likely to be consumed, version when they both mean the
> same thing?
>> 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.
> Here is a crazy idea: how about oneway:bicycle=-1?
I already hinted at that.
> Nice and simple, saves you from having to add tags that indicate
> bicycles can't travel in the forward direction, and may actually be
> noticed by data consumers who are likely to be also be looking for
True, but that argument of simplification can be made for a lot of tags,
for example cycleway=track/lane => cycleway=yes.
You are losing Information.
>> 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.
> Nope. I mean cycleway=shared as defined on the wiki page (from late
> 2011 onward, so I didn't think it was such a new and radical idea).
Could you provide a link? All I could find was
> In Australia the only difference between cycleway=shared and
> cycleway=shared_lane can be one of these signs:
Road markings look the same to me, should be tagged the same in osm.
Should be a subform of cycleway=shared_lane on first thoughts.
More information about the Tagging