On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:28 AM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24/09/2008 09:56, Dave Stubbs wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: >>> >>>> whether you can just cycle the wrong way down >>>> the road avoiding any on coming cars. >>> >>> I _think_ that is illegal in the UK anyway isn't it? Cycles generally >>> have >>> to follow the normal rules of the road unless there is a sign explicitly >>> making some exception (I've never seen a "one-way for everyone except >>> cycles" sign in the UK). >> >> >> They were experimenting with it in Kensington & Chelsea: >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/article4061323.ece > > Yes, but the point is that these are "false" one-way streets. They are > either signed with No Entry with a cycle bypass or with No Motor Vehicles > signs (the "low flying motorcycles") one. > > In the first case, only the short section past the island is one-way. The > rest of the street is two way. In practice this often makes little > difference (though there are streets where it is clear traffic needs to be > able to go both ways), and in theory a motor vehicle can turn around.
Yeah, these are really easy, and really obvious when you see them, and really common (in london at least). > [snip mapping] > > The second case has much the same effect, but it is less well respected. As > there is no island, I am not sure how to map these. Tis is a current issue > ion Cambridge where there have recently been half a dozen streets changed to > have this arrangement (there always were one or two). At some point you can legally ride a bike in the opposite direction to other traffic. The no motorised vehicles thing is just a crap way of getting round signage issues, because you obviously can use motorised vehicles on the road... just not in one direction. Now OSMs tags will get completely confused by that. Either we just get as confused as the signage is and try and precisely figure out complex tagging regimes, or we just accept the fact that it is a oneway (plug), with cycleway=opposite.... which was the whole point of the thing anyway as far as the people who built it are concerned. Or we start a guerilla campaign to fix the tagging at source... a few fake oneway signs, a hammer, and some cable ties should do the trick. > > There are also true contraflows, which have an entrance like the first case > above, but also a cycle lane marked with a SOLID line. The rest of the > street is then genuinely one way, and cycleway_opposite does the job. cycleway=opposite_lane you mean? > > See > http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/onewaystreets/signs/ > > David > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
