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 didn't say that either of those
forms of tagging imply the other. 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? 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 oneway:bicycle=no.
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). In
Australia the only difference between cycleway=shared and
cycleway=shared_lane can be one of these signs:
https://www.alamy.com/cyclists-share-the-road-sign-australia-image224679530.html
maybe every 5 to 10 km. I feel so much safer now...
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
