[OSM-talk] [tagging] Current access rules

[Dave Stubbs]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm getting issues with the fact that access rules are never formally
> defined. For example, does this make a oneway road accessible for
> bicycles in two directions or not:
>
> oneway=yes
> bicycle=yes

No, it doesn't.
It says bicycles are allowed on the road.

>
> For those saying that it doesn't, how would they propose a tag for
> allowing bicycles in two directions

cycleway=opposite


> * without using the cycleway=opposite tag, it's ugly :-)

oh, i see.


> * keeping in mind that bicycle=* in that case has less precedence over
> oneway=yes, so something like bicycle=twoway doesn't work (making that
> a special case so it has precedence over oneway would also be ugly)
> * without making use of the namespaces like bicycle:oneway=*

so you have a oneway road that you can cycle down in the opposite
direction. I can see a couple of choices:

cycleway=opposite -- this comes as a consequence of the opposite_lane
and opposite_track values which make it make more sense. I understand
why, on it's own, it looks a little weird.

bicycle:oneway=no, oneway:bicycle=no, bicycle_oneway=no... or some
other annotation variation. This is easily expandable to any other of
the access tags. I don't have a problem with any of these other than
that there are already over a thousand cycleway=opposite in the DB.

Dave