Am So., 17. März 2019 um 14:04 Uhr schrieb Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com >:
> 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 "opposite" direction, but it remains unclear to what "opposite" refers (direction of OSM way or direction you would expect from the jurisdiction), and it doesn't make it clear whether this has oneway implications (the wiki says so, but the data doesn't support it, see below). There seems to be more confusion about this tag in the wiki, e.g. here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway:right%3Dlane I read that cycleway=opposite_lane is used for locations with 2 bike lanes (trail is to mean "lane" on that page?)? Here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane it says it is "Used on a one-way street that has a cycling lane going in the opposite direction to normal traffic flow" Looking at actual data it seems more than 10% of the roads with this tag also have an explicit oneway=no and roughly one third (!) do not have any oneway tag, which directly contradicts the definition. IMHO we should have 2 distinct tags: one for position (left right both) and nature (lane or track) of the cycle infrastructure, and one for oneway or not on these elements. As the opposite_lane tag does not follow the definition (almost half of the objects would be "wrong"), it should be deprecated. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
