Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:51:26 -0400 From: Bryan Housel To: osm-tagging Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes [...] It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way to standardize a tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives? if you want to be explicit, you could also add cycleway:left:lanes=0 and cycleway:right:lanes=0 ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 9. May 2018, at 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My (basic) tagging would be: > highway=unclassified (or whatever) > cycleway:right=lane > cycleway:right:oneway=yes > cycleway:left=lane > cycleway:left:oneway=-1 > > the value "-1" is discouraged for

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good > way to standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping > dataset. Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Hah speaking of lanes.. Why does the osm wiki page for `leisure=track` list `lanes=*` under the “useful combination” section. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=track I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an athletics track that

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

13. May 2018 20:58 by ba...@ursamundi.org : > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com > > > wrote: > >> Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the >> tag is defined, create a new

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

> On May 13, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis > wrote: > Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the > tag is defined, create a new one.

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Am 11.05.2018 um 17:40 schrieb Paul Johnson: > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change?  Even > the Linux kernel rewrites entire subsystems from time to time when a > superior approach comes around. > Try to change the semantics of an existing LINUX system call (which

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis wrote: > Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how > the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one. > Improvement=vandalism. Got it. > The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one. The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] [OKFILTER] Re: tagging of one-way cycle lanes

+1 Thanks, Marc. Simpler is better :) On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > I would just map them as lanes =2; cycleway=lane. That is how they are > mapped in Belgium and The Netherlands. > Isn't that the L1a case of >

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward > but > > correct. > > > This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward but > correct. This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it) and bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes (or designated|designated) and

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

I would just map them as lanes =2; cycleway=lane. That is how they are mapped in Belgium and The Netherlands. Isn't that the L1a case of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle that you describe ? regards m. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I

Re: [Tagging] [OKFILTER] Re: tagging of one-way cycle lanes

Thorsten's initial suggestion is the agreed-upon method, not PJ's. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036178.html Instead of oneway=yes and oneway=-1, use :lanes:forward or :lanes:backward in the key. And as many have pointed out, don't touch the main "lanes" tag, which

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question > about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without > changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes. > > Thanks in

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes. Thanks in advance On 13 May 2018 at 16:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018, 00:37 Marc Gemis wrote: > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. > This literally doesn't add up. Also, that's a shoulder on the right, Tulsa screwed up and used white paint for the centerline. Awkward but correct. But as