> This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. > [...] Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on > renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers.
Indeed. Either as cycleway=track/lane on car road (all along) or as a separate way (all along), both not like this. For me, adding geometry gives additional information and accuracy, more clarity + "easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.)" Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1]. My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous highway=cycleway. For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however. I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said: crossings and junctions), and let the geometry speaks. ... or ... ... maybe ... ... I don't know if I should ... Apparently highway=cycleway + cycleway=lane is already in use 1500 uses in https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane#combinations So either some people are mistagging, or the wiki needs to be updated to the practice. -- althio [1]: if I am somehow wrong and it is indeed (remotely) possible to apply route relation membership with namespacing, I beg, please leave me ignorant. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
