Andrew Davidson wrote:
As you've actually consumed the data I'm interested to know what
problems you have found
The bit of my routing profile that parses cycleway tags has a big
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign hanging over it and I try not
to revisit it too often. ;)
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]
Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
Nice straw man you've made there. I didn't say that either of those
forms of tagging imply the other.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
of the
data, read: a selective interpretation of data.
Greetings
> On 03/16/19, 22:43, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" ,
> "Martin Koppenhoefer"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cy
What are you gonna do with the *=track cases then?
Imho your approach would mean to generally discourage
cycleway*=* and generally represent cycleway tracks
using a separate geometry.
In the case where cycleway tracks are separated merely
by a curb, this may be unsatisfactory as well. If the
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:21, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> In Australia the only difference between cycleway=shared and
> cycleway=shared_lane can be one of these signs:
>
Or even
On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
49 out of 65000.
Not sure what I am supposed to do with this factoid. Maybe if I try and
explain the problem in a form that you can't just look up on taginfo:
Let's say we have two keys: key_a and key_b. key_a can have a number of
values:
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
sent from a phone
> On 16. Mar 2019, at 23:43, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> So in this case if that tag is accompanied by:
>
> cycleway:left=shared
>
> then there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure
49 out of 65000. There are some thousand of shared_lane though. I didn’t know
this tag,
In general, I agree with Martin.
Am 16.03.2019 um 23:43 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
these tags are stating different things though:
How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way:
A--->B
oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass
On 15/3/19 8:03 pm, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
On topic: I don't have a great preference for either tagging scheme (they're
both a bit ungainly, I've found them both a bit of a PITA to support in
cycle.travel's tag parsing). cycleway=opposite_lane is concise but unclear.
That's interesting to
On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
these tags are stating different things though:
How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way:
A--->B
oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along this way A->B
and B->A
exactly the same case if there is any of the tags:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:24 AM Charles MILLET
wrote:
> Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft%3Aoneway=-1
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=opposite_lane
>
> *=opposite_lane is/was well understood
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 01:36, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> In general, people unfortunately rarely
> document mailing list discussions on wiki,
> even in cases of a clear consensus.
> What is quite weird, given that editing wiki has
> usually much greater impact on tag usage
> than commenting on
sent from a phone
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 20:20, Hubert87 wrote:
>
> Also, but OT, lanes-count should only be used for double tracked vehicles
> afaik. In contrast to the *:lanes=*|*|* scheme.
You have to distinguish lanes count on roads from that on cycle infrastructure.
Admittedly, they
Interesting.
But I actually miss wrote. I meant a two-way cycleway.
Also, but OT, lanes-count should only be used for double tracked
vehicles afaik. In contrast to the *:lanes=*|*|* scheme.
Am 15.03.2019 um 19:55 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
sent from a phone
On 15. Mar 2019, at 19:42,
First use of cycleway:left=opposite_lane appears
to be one in Böblingen near Stuttgart in November
2009 [1]. About one year later it was applied to
a geometry in the center of Paris [2].
Traces of cycleway:left:oneway=* date back to late
2010, north of Edinburgh [3], about two months after
the
sent from a phone
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 19:42, Hubert87 wrote:
>
> Also, have you considered, how you would tag a dual-cycleway on the left-hand
> side of a one way carriageway?(eg cycleway:left=? + cycleway:left:oneway=no)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alanes
Hi again,
lets ignore the cycleway:left:oneway=-1 for a moment and just consider
cycleway:left=lane vs cycleway:left=opposite_lane.
To me the main difference is, that cycleway:left=opposite_lane can only
be used when the carriageway itself is a one way street (legally speaking).
because of
Let's do some research how "cycleway:left=opposite_lane"
entered the Bicycle wiki documentation. The relevant edit
was made in June 2013 [1].
Before that, Bicycle documentation has lived 5 years
from its incarnation without recommending opposite_lane
in combination with cycleway:left or
Missed the earlier discussion.
I also always regarded cycleway=opposite, opposite_track, opposite_lane,
opposite_share_busway etc. as the old deprecated method and oneway:bicycle=no +
normal cycleway tag as the one that superceded it.
Same with cycleway:right=dual_lane/dual_track being
Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 16:36 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
> Where are the wiki edits in 2017 of 2018 of the
> wiki, documenting the results of the mailing
> list discussions back then?
>
> In general, people unfortunately rarely
> document mailing list discussions
Mar 15, 2019, 2:57 PM by cmu...@gmx.de:
> I'm objecting right now and heavily so.
> There are lots of mappers not continuously
> reading the mailing list or that are active
> in other forums, so I do not have to regret
> that I have not been there in 2017 or 2018.
>
> cycleway:right= and
As the one who in a way triggered this discussion originally, a discussion
that has been abandoned without conclusion, I want to say that I had very
much preferred that the discussion be restarted *before *a one-sided wiki
change.
If two different methods are in use, we should document both,
oneway:bicycle=no is indifferent to a specific lane object,
it only means that a specific mode of transportation has
an exemption from the value tagged using oneway=*
In fact, oneway:bicycle=no refers most prominently to oneways
that do not have a marked cycleway lane at all, e.g. case S1
in the
I'm objecting right now and heavily so.
There are lots of mappers not continuously
reading the mailing list or that are active
in other forums, so I do not have to regret
that I have not been there in 2017 or 2018.
cycleway:right= and cycleway:left= tags
are way older. And no-one thought about
Oh, and how exactly do you explain, that it never
ever appeared in the tag description for cycleway:left
and cycleway:right ?
Even on Bicycle wiki page, these were _red_ links,
while all the other stuff had neatly been linked
to existing and valid tag descriptions.
The meaning of it has never
The oneway attribute, unaffixed or not, reflects the direction
a way may _legally_ be used in. You're free to ignore it, but
may have to deal with consequences by law enforcement personnel.
Because in OSM each way has an inherent direction given by the
order of its node list (let it be D), it is
It also means that this software in turn
could dictate what the wiki has to document.
There are lots of people around deriving tag
meaning based on taginfo data. If the wiki
doc is not in sync with their findings, it
is tempting to document the state empirically
observable.
In some cases, spare
+1 for your rationale by not being blinded by sheer numbers.
(if we are to go by the numbers there, we are stuck with the
oldest and most established tags ever, regardless of their
shortcomings)
-1 for your suspicion. If you cannot live with a wiki being
changed, then use paper. Wikis were
This is not true, the namespace method has been
employed at least since May 2008, but propably
even before that date on which it was documented:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace
*:oneway is just an employment of this method,
documentation of a full key may be present, but
this is
The answer to your question is simple. The conretion
of opposite_lane depends on the traffic system you're
in, but cycleway:left and cycleway:right are globally
used tags, not limited to a specific jurisdiction.
In particular, :left and :right suffixes _do not_
depend on the traffic system in
Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 11:15 Uhr schrieb Andrew Davidson <
thesw...@gmail.com>:
> On 15/3/19 11:35 am, Hubert87 wrote:
>
> >
> > "cycleway:left:oneway=-1"
> >
> > as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like
> > this for a while now.
>
> What makes you think that?
>
>
On 15/3/19 11:35 am, Hubert87 wrote:
>
"cycleway:left:oneway=-1"
as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like
this for a while now.
What makes you think that?
cycleway:left:oneway=-1 => 979
cycleway:right:oneway=-1 => 19
oneway:bicycle=no => 70400
and looking at
On 15/3/19 10:12 am, althio wrote:
Discussed: maybe there
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036164.html
Decided : I don't know
Even for the tagging list that is one rambling thread. After pushing
through a lengthy discussion on how to count the number of lanes, how
Mar 15, 2019, 10:03 AM by rich...@systemed.net:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> Yes, one of main points of StreetComplete is to allow editing
>> without knowing how objects are tagged, similarly iD.
>>
>> It means that to count "how many people decided to use tag
>> XYZ" all iD users and all
Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 09:59 Uhr schrieb Charles MILLET <
charlesmil...@free.fr>:
> I am not comfortable with the definition of standard tag in this case.
>
> Isn't the tag or name space "oneway" made to define that a lane is
> oneway or not ? In this case using cycleway:left means by default
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, one of main points of StreetComplete is to allow editing
> without knowing how objects are tagged, similarly iD.
>
> It means that to count "how many people decided to use tag
> XYZ" all iD users and all StreetComplete users count as say
> 4 people because not
I am not comfortable with the definition of standard tag in this case.
Isn't the tag or name space "oneway" made to define that a lane is
oneway or not ? In this case using cycleway:left means by default it is
oneway. So the name space ":oneway" is used to describe the direction.
Correct me
Yes, one of main points of StreetComplete is to allow editing without
knowing how objects are tagged, similarly iD.
It means that to count "how many people decided to use tag XYZ"
all iD users and all StreetComplete users count as say 4 people
because not each mapper is deciding on its own but it
Whatever the preferred tagging method, both are used and both should be
documented in the wiki.
At least for the sake of data users and definition of used tags.
The edit of the wiki looks suspicious.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 09:25 Charles MILLET wrote:
> Taginfo shows it is not the preferred
Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging
scheme
Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft%3Aoneway=-1
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycle
It was introduce in may 2018 when opposite_lane was already well used
and described in the wiki. I don't see any process of validation but
correct me if I am wrong. I feel the wiki modification to introduce
cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1 has been forced through.
Charles
On
sent from a phone
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 09:23, Charles MILLET wrote:
>
> Why using two tags when one works well, when the value opposite_lane exists
> and the interpretation is the same?
why using a specific tag if everything can be expressed with standard tags?
There are arguments for
Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft%3Aoneway=-1
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=opposite_lane
*=opposite_lane is/was well understood as far as I know (I am regularly
"teaching" OSM using the
I also regard
"cycleway:left=lane"
"cycleway:left:oneway=-1"
as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like
this for a while now.
Just my two cents
Hubert87
Am 15.03.2019 um 00:12 schrieb althio:
Discussed: maybe there
sent from a phone
> On 14. Mar 2019, at 23:13, Antoine Riche via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Cmuelle introduces rather complex combinations of tags such as
> cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1, that should in his view be used
> instead of cycleway:left=opposite_lane. Does anyone on
Hello.
(message resent without annoying formatting, apologies)
Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of
Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for
unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning
Hello.
Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of
Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for
unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning with
cycleway:left, cycleway:right and cycleway:both and
49 matches
Mail list logo
