Filtering out separate cycleways that accompany roads would be plain wrong. A bicycle router should get me on cycleway (and off the road).
Double tagging, i.e. cycleway=track on the road plus a separate parallel highway=cycleway is only undesirable. I remove the redundant cycleway=track when I encounter it. On 16 Jan 2018 2:12 p.m., "Marc Gemis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is indeed problematic. A lot of use cases preprocess osm data and > > filter out separate/parallel cycleways and paths. It would be nice to > > have a compromise in the wiki as to suggest that a minimum of tags on > > the motorized way should remain _even if_ a parallel way exists. > > I would love to have this confirmed by the makers of e.g. navigation > software. > It is not clear to me whether you are a data consumer that has this > problem or whether you think they might have a problem. > > If you know that there is information about cycleways on separate "osm > ways", why filter them out ? > I wonder how different this is e.g. by filtering out all buildings and > then complaining that house numbers are missing because you can only > process address points. > > There is a rule One Feature, One Object in OSM. [1] > It seems to me that anything besides a tag similar to > cycleway=separate is breaking this rule > > regards. > > m. > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
