On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm getting issues with the fact that access rules are never formally > defined. For example, does this make a oneway road accessible for > bicycles in two directions or not: > > oneway=yes > bicycle=yes
No, it doesn't. It says bicycles are allowed on the road. > > For those saying that it doesn't, how would they propose a tag for > allowing bicycles in two directions cycleway=opposite > * without using the cycleway=opposite tag, it's ugly :-) oh, i see. > * keeping in mind that bicycle=* in that case has less precedence over > oneway=yes, so something like bicycle=twoway doesn't work (making that > a special case so it has precedence over oneway would also be ugly) > * without making use of the namespaces like bicycle:oneway=* so you have a oneway road that you can cycle down in the opposite direction. I can see a couple of choices: cycleway=opposite -- this comes as a consequence of the opposite_lane and opposite_track values which make it make more sense. I understand why, on it's own, it looks a little weird. bicycle:oneway=no, oneway:bicycle=no, bicycle_oneway=no... or some other annotation variation. This is easily expandable to any other of the access tags. I don't have a problem with any of these other than that there are already over a thousand cycleway=opposite in the DB. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
