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 oneway in opposite direction allowed) is effectively the same as using oneway:bicycle=no Your concern about using one tag less: I only agree half the way that this is true, because a) opposite_lane is not _a_ value, but rather a value combination, it expresses (like the semicola based approach) two different things in one value b) If you strictly tag tracks explicitly, you can imply that cycleway:left:oneway=-1 also means cycleway:left=lane. c) cycleway:left_lane:oneway=-1 or cycleway:left:lane:oneway=-1 also has all the information in one tag, but I personally do not think that this should be a design goal. Legal direction and cycleway type are conceptually to separate things, why should they not be expressed using two tags? Greetings > On 03/17/19, 13:03, Markus wrote: > > > > I support discouraging both opposite* values. > > I suppose you mean all three? > > [..] > > 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. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
