Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem garbled at points.... Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway? The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no, segregated=yes, sidewalk=right. Kind regards,, Adam On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, < talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no" > is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no? > I would consider it as kind of pointless to require > oneway tag to be always present > > I added some advertisement for StreetComplete > (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests > as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data). > Feel free to reduce/move/remove them. > > > Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk: > > Hello, > > > > The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle > infrastructure. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure > > > > Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have > avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter > roads. > > > > Best regards > > Gareth > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
