Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway={opposite, opposite_lane}?

OSM is a thing of beauty and a job forever. If the distant goal changed from sticking to ground truth, we may also accept fake islands and fantasy cities again, instead of consequently removing them. And no, even if I wanted to replace them all, I could not, for lack of resources and because of

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Am So., 17. März 2019 um 14:04 Uhr schrieb Markus : > I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible > than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you > need one tag less. I disagree, cycleway:left=opposite_lane is clearly about a bicycle lane in an

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Yes, all of them, rationale: For cycleway=opposite_track or cycleway=opposite_lane you won't know which track or lane it refers to (or if it refers to both), if two lanes or tracks accompany the road. cycleway=opposite (in the sense that no lane is marked and no track exists, but cycling a

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Mar 17, 2019, 10:50 AM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated >> contraflow lane. >> > > cycleway=no +

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:38, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > I support discouraging both opposite* values. I suppose you mean all three? > Re-using oneway semantics is easy. oneway is an established > tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not > reshaped in an obscure way it is

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose > position and direction are opposite to the direction you would expect (e.g. > it is left for right traffic jurisdictions), right? No, that's

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

I support discouraging both opposite* values. Re-using oneway semantics is easy. oneway is an established tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not reshaped in an obscure way it is reusable in all its namespace variants with confidence and no frills. I'm also in favour of a

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

sent from a phone > On 17. Mar 2019, at 10:50, Markus wrote: > > I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often > confused with cycleway=opposite_lane. cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose position and direction are opposite to the

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated > contraflow lane. cycleway=no + oneway:bicycle=no is much clearer in my opinion. I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often confused with

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated contraflow lane. This way all oneway:bicycle=no have either cycleway=opposite or cycleway=opposite_lane or are waiting for survey. Mar 17, 2019, 8:37 AM by thesw...@gmail.com: > On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer

[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I didn’t know this tag, historically the cycleway tags were used for bicycle infrastructure, seems people are working to change this. I didn't say I liked the cycleway=shared tag. There are a lot of highways in Australia tagged with this and