Hi, comments below
On 01-10-17 15:06, Yves bxl-forever wrote: > Hello, > > It may be a good idea to freshen up the pages on the wiki to remove all > confusion about this. > Perhaps we could summarize all the discussions as such. > > > 1) If a street is one-way for motor traffic but open to cyclists in both > direction, we use this: > > oneway=yes > oneway:bicycle=no > > (This scheme is better than the legacy cycleway=opposite tag, because it also > allows to add oneway:moped_P=no if we have the new M11 roadsign allowing > speed pedelecs too.) > > > > 2) A properly-marked lane > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cycleway_lane1_be.jpg), i.e. > stripped lines > In Belgian traffic rules, this is the same as a track (fietspad/piste > cyclable) and gives right-of-way to cyclists > > cycleway=lane > > (if cyclists can use the street in both directions, use cycleway:left > or cycleway:right if the situation is not the same on both sides) > > > > 3) Just logos > (http://redac.cuk.ch/archives_v3/5237/bandecyclablesuggeree.png) or color, > but without the stripped lines > This is the example eMerzh brought up to start the discussion. > This situation does not do anything with regard to traffic rules, but is > useful for cycling applications because it feels a little safer than a street > with nothing. > > cycleway=shared_lane > > > > > What do you think? You are totally correct is what I think. Cycleway=opposite as per marc marc's suggestion is wrong in this particular case. well formulated. Glenn _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
