[Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> But generally the question is should "oneway to cars" be tagged as
>> oneway=yes?  Because it paints a big oneway arrow on the map which
>> will confuse everyone except car-drivers.
>
> Even if you're a cyclist or other user of the road, knowing that cars
> will only traverse in one direction is often helpful.
>
> But then again would also sound sensible to drop the oneway arrows from
> the cycle map where cycleway=opposite_something is present - in case
> that's not done already.

I'm trying to think of a symbol to reflect that it's not oneway for
bikes, but you might see lots of no entry signs as you approach, with
a tiny hidden sneakthrough somewhere. I've already fallen for it in
real life where I thought that OSM was wrong directing me up a oneway
road and only later realised that it did indeed have an opposite_lane
hidden behind a parked car.

:-)

But I don't worry about it too much, since it looks like many
contributors misunderstand what opposite_lanes are anyway, since they
are using them on two-way roads. We've never agreed on what
cycleway=lane is either (the consensus is that it means cycle lanes in
*both* directions, but that's a flakey consensus at best). And
cycleway=track is similarly vague. Ho hum.

Cheers,
Andy