Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no / Wiki editing

[André Pirard]

On 2017-05-10 21:08, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
>
> Hi André,
>
> according to this documentation,
> the tagging mailing list is the wrong platform to address this  :
> "*If you have ideas for the wiki, you can generally just do them, by
> editing the wiki! *
> If you need any assistance the *wikiteam* are here to help."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki#Wikiteam
>
Have you perchance seen the long and multiple discussions about
noexit=yes and similar subjects?
Yes, this place is exactly the one where to discuss that *tagging*
errors are made, what the wiki actually means, that it may be
misunderstood and that it should be clarified.

In this caseit seems clear to me that cycleway
=opposite* defines a
cycleway and some use it to tag a oneway exception.
And that oneway:bicycle
=no is the
access tag defining the oneway exception, that it is sometimes omitted
and that like misusing any access tag it produces routing (GPS) errors.
Some uncommented people openly laugh at OSM routing globally; in
contrast, I say "change this if you want better routing" and I'm the one
being criticized.
The horror comes when someone said that a wiki article (he didn't show
which) deprecates oneway:bicycle
=no and when the
very attractive map http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/%7Eligfietser/fiets/
introduces confusion.
I have no time to make corrections and improvements to every wiki topics
that need it and I hope that the persons who wrote them or acquaintances
will listen and do it.

For example, if I understood well, I'd recommend this or better:
cycleway
=opposite*indicates
the presence of a sort of cycleway called "cycle plug",  a very narrow
part of aoneway:bicycle
=no way that
runs alongside it for cyclists to ride contraflow on.
Just that and not a long explanation of contraflow, making believe that
it's the subject, with a seemingly casual mention of "cycle plug" in the
end where one may have stopped reading. And oneway:bicycle
=no is not
"normally" tagged with it but is the fundamental reason for choosing the
value "opposite" and hence mandatory.
And I suggest replacing other possible explanations of that subject
scattered in the wiki with a pointer to the one and only.

OSM and I thank you for your attention,
Cheers,

André.


> Unless some always ask for a proposal to edit /amend anything in the wiki.
> IMHO this leads to the result you mentioned :
> "Unfortunately, I'm very sorry to say, OSM is often much of a chaos."
> There seem to be very few people which first like to request a request
> form
> to be able to help the community to improve *.
>
> A "code of conduct"** would be helpful in which cases
> you may just add a minor specification, unfortunately I couldn't find
> such up to now.
>
> Cheers,
> Thilo
>
> * For those who don't know the concept of sarcasm :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
>
> ** Certainly this will also leave some (border) cases which are
> disputable,
> but at least there would be SOME agreed guideline.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
>
> Am 10.05.2017 um 15:10 schrieb André Pirard:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In this thread, I said, in agreement with others,
>> that oneway:bicycle
>> =no (click to
>> open that page) is the tag to be used *to tell routing
>> software**(GPS)* that *oneway*=yes
>> does not apply to
>> bicycles
>> that cycleway
>> =opposite* has
>> noting to do with routing and contraflow but indicates that *there is
>> a cycleway* that *happens* to be "opposite".
>>
>> Could you please make the wiki documentation more clear about that?
>> Because mappers often believe that cycleway=opposite means to
>> indicate bicycle contraflow oneway:bicycle=no.
>> Unfortunately, sometimes contradictory sentences about the same
>> concept are often spread all over the wiki.
>> Find them all!
>>
>> I have written this script
>> 
>> to find where many cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no
>> and even without oneway=yes.
>>
>> Look at this street  to
>> which GRi added cycleway=opposite without oneway:bicycle=no, to which
>> JanFi added oneway:bicycle=no  probably after reading this thread
>> (thank you!) and from which I removed 

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no / Wiki editing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2017, at 21:08, Thilo Haug OSM  wrote:
> 
> according to this documentation, 
> the tagging mailing list is the wrong platform to address this  :
> "If you have ideas for the wiki, you can generally just do them, by editing 
> the wiki! 
> If you need any assistance the wikiteam are here to help."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki#Wikiteam



"ideas for the wiki" doesn't mean changes of tag definitions or the 
introduction of new tags. You are free to document existing, widespread and 
generally agreed on definitions and practices in the wiki, but this requires 
good knowledge and some experience in the osm system.

You can also use any tag you like when mapping, but this doesn't mean you can 
add them as the new standard to the wiki, rather you should document it as a 
proposal so that other mappers can comment on it, and if they adopt it, it will 
become a new standard.

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[André Pirard]

Hi,

In this thread, I said, in agreement with others,
that oneway:bicycle
=no (click to
open that page) is the tag to be used *to tell routing software**(GPS)*
that *oneway*=yes does
not apply to bicycles
that cycleway
=opposite* has noting
to do with routing and contraflow but indicates that *there is a
cycleway* that *happens* to be "opposite".

Could you please make the wiki documentation more clear about that?
Because mappers often believe that cycleway=oppositemeans to indicate
bicycle contraflow oneway:bicycle=no.
Unfortunately, sometimes contradictory sentences about the same concept
are often spread all over the wiki.
Find them all!

I have written this script

to find where many cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no
and even without oneway=yes.

Look at this street  to
which GRi added cycleway=opposite without oneway:bicycle=no, to which
JanFi added oneway:bicycle=no  probably after reading this thread (thank
you!) and from which I removed cycleway=opposite because there is no
cycleway at all.

The worst of all is that the map
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/%7Eligfietser/fiets/ shows
"cycleway=opposite or oneway:bicycle=no" ways, hence neither identifying
the cycleways  nor the contraflow correctly and not testing in its bugs
tag that cycleway=opposite must contain oneway:bicycle=no.
That is pitiful complete misinformation and the author did not even
reply to my message.

Unfortunately, I'm very sorry to say, OSM is often much of a chaos.

Hoping this will help,
Cheers

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging