As the one who in a way triggered this discussion originally, a discussion that has been abandoned without conclusion, I want to say that I had very much preferred that the discussion be restarted *before *a one-sided wiki change. If two different methods are in use, we should document both, outlining also their limitations. I had suspended spending time on this, as I intended to introduce also other combinations, like two-way cycle lanes (no physical separation) on one side of the road, combined or segregated foot-cycle lanes on one side of the road, and maybe others that I have forgotten about. The more cycling-related infrastructure I map, the more odd solutions come up, for which I would like to have consensus-based mapping solutions.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:07, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > oneway:bicycle=no is indifferent to a specific lane object, > it only means that a specific mode of transportation has > an exemption from the value tagged using oneway=* > > In fact, oneway:bicycle=no refers most prominently to oneways > that do not have a marked cycleway lane at all, e.g. case S1 > in the osm wiki [1]. > > It is not an adequate replacement for the lane specific > tags and thus should not be mixed. > > > Regards, > cmuelle8 > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous > > > > On 15/3/19, 10:13, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > > > oneway:bicycle=no => 70400 > > > > and looking at http://taghistory.raifer.tech/ oneway:bicycle was being > > added at a rate of 120:1 to cycleway:left/right:oneway in the first half > > of 2018. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
