[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Mar 18 10:40:09 UTC 2019

Am So., 17. März 2019 um 14:04 Uhr schrieb Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com

> I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible
> than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you
> need one tag less.

I disagree, cycleway:left=opposite_lane is clearly about a bicycle lane in
an "opposite" direction, but it remains unclear to what "opposite" refers
(direction of OSM way or direction you would expect from the jurisdiction),
and it doesn't make it clear whether this has oneway implications (the wiki
says so, but the data doesn't support it, see below).

There seems to be more confusion about this tag in the wiki, e.g. here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway:right%3Dlane I read that
cycleway=opposite_lane is used for locations with 2 bike lanes (trail is to
mean "lane" on that page?)? Here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane it says it
is "Used on a one-way street that has a cycling lane going in the opposite
direction to normal traffic flow"
Looking at actual data it seems more than 10% of the roads with this tag
also have an explicit oneway=no and roughly one third (!) do not have any
oneway tag, which directly contradicts the definition.

IMHO we should have 2 distinct tags: one for position (left right both) and
nature (lane or track) of the cycle infrastructure, and one for oneway or
not on these elements.
As the opposite_lane tag does not follow the definition (almost half of the
objects would be "wrong"), it should be deprecated.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190318/56b74103/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list