14 lip 2019, 14:07 od rich...@systemed.net:
> Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:
>
> bicycle=designated
> highway=proposed
>
Based on tagging is it a not yet existing
road that will have some part designated
for use by cyclists (lane/cycleway?).
Maybe it will be a cycleway.
Other major issue is that source tag
is missing what is not ok for
proposed ways (assuming that mapping highway=proposed
is desirable)
> Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no ("nothing
> is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route relation ("bikes can
> ride along here").
>
It may be worth reporting as error by validator. Even with really badly designed
bicycle routes where bicycle=no
happens still allow foot passage.
> 1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags? At
> present cycle.travel will assume the most optimistic outcome, which is good
> for a cycle route which goes over a private road and the mapper has forgotten
> to add bicycle=permissive, but not good for a new cycleway which hasn't yet
> been constructed.
>
Personally I would assume that all highway=proposed are not passable
(including ones with cycleway=lane etc).
I would treat ways with supposedly
no access but in cycleway route as
passable. But maybe add some penalty
and assume that dismounting and walking
is necessary?
Not sure about ways in route, with
explicit bicycle=no, foot=no.
> 2. Can we get warnings about this into validators etc.? I note iD doesn't
> warn about it. (No idea what JOSM does.)
>
As usual, opening issue in their bug trackers
is usual a good first step._______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
