sorry, that mail 5min ago, was send by accident.
Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
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 resent that statement.
I didn't say that either of those forms of tagging imply the other.
No, I did!
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?
I already hinted at that.
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.
True, but that argument of simplification can be made for a lot of tags,
for example cycleway=track/lane => cycleway=yes.
You are losing Information.
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).
Could you provide a link? All I could find was
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
In Australia the only difference between cycleway=shared and
cycleway=shared_lane can be one of these signs:
Road markings look the same to me, should be tagged the same in osm.
Should be a subform of cycleway=shared_lane on first thoughts.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
