Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I would assume that in-carriageway cycle lanes (not separate cycle tracks)
are one-way by default, just like the general traffic lanes they are part
of. Certainly where I live, I do not feel the need to tag them as one-way.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Wed, 9 May 2018, 18:13 Volker Schmidt,  wrote:

>
> I want to tag a road (one of thousands in this country) that has two lanes
> for cars  (one in each direction) and two cycle lanes, one on each side.
> Thes cycle lanes are by law one-way in the same direction of the motorized
> traffic in the neighbouring road lane.
>
> My (basic) tagging would be:
> highway=unclassified (or whatever)
> cycleway:right=lane
> cycleway:right:oneway=yes
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:left:oneway=-1
>
> the value "-1" is discouraged for the "oneway" key, but in this case I see
> no alternative
> "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" has some 800 uses in taginfo,
> "cycleway:right:oneway=yes" has some 2800 uses in taginfo.
>
> Should I go ahead with my tagging? Alternatives?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Is it a kissing gate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkissing_gate if so that
specific tag is more appropriate than a generic gate.

The access tags for foot only would be access=no, foot=yes
In practice almost all gates (that aren't kissing gates) are physically big
enough for bikes etc. as well , so I'd suggest foot=yes motorcar=no. If the
path is only a right of way on foot then this can be implied by the class
of highway eg. highway=footway or explicitly tagged eg. highway=path;
foot=yes, bicycle=no, horse=no, motor_vehicle=no,

Kind  regards,

Adam

On 20 April 2018 at 09:32, e.rossin...@alice.it 
wrote:

> Hi, excuse me, how can I correctly tag a small gate only for foot access?
>
> barrier=gate and then which other tag can I use?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Railways along streets

[Adam Snape]

On 11 April 2018 at 12:47, François Lacombe 
wrote:

> I would definetly map it with 2 distinct ways.
> They can both share the same nodes, or map the road as two "oneway"
> highways with the railway between both directions
>

+1 to mapping tehm as separate ways.
If traffic can physically cross from one side of the railway to the other
(eg. to do a u-turn) the road shouldn't be mapped as two oneway highways
because it affects routing.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Is 'unknown' really such an unusual and undesirable as an access tag? I
thought it was long-established, if not especially common. If the issue is
a lack of Wiki documentation that is easily solved.

I think that highway=footway foot=unknown adds a useful level of nuance.
For example a routing engine could choose to avoid such routes where it
would route over a footway by default. Of couse we could produce this
result by tagging foot=no, but if we don't know that pedestrians actually
aren't allowed that would be incorrectly tagging for the router.
foot=unknown could be considered an implicit fixme in the same way as
highway=road is, but also have teh benefit of being useable directly by
data consumers (if they chose to use it) unlike the free-form text
contained in notes and fixmes.

More generally, wherever an absence of a particular tag is taken to imply
something is or isn't present then a tag of something=unknown does have a
valid and worthwhile meaning distinct from no tag at all. .

Adam

On 5 February 2018 at 16:46, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> I'd rather use fixme and note tags instead of encoding uncodified
> information in well-established tags.
>
> The wiki page [1] explains a bit the difference: "The fixme key allows
> contributors to mark objects and places that need further attention. These
> can be in the form of a "note to self" or request for additional mapping
> resources. Its distinction from note=* is that fixme is only to express
> that the mapper thinks there is an error, while note might be information
> to other mappers."
>
> If it's reasonable to think tagging can be improved (e.g. initial tagging
> was a bit rushed and better tagging is expected based on site survey or
> imagery), than a fixme note looks suitable.
>
> In the case you describe ("nothing suggesting that further survey will
> reveal what the legal situation is"), a note looks suitable to document
> there was a site survey and explain why "it was obvious that it was not
> obvious" (that is to say: explaining the elements causing your perplexity
> conveys much richer information than tagging "unknown").
>
> And you could also start a discussion on the mailing list and link to it
> from the note, so other mappers are aware of the discussion and can
> contribute.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Questions on building-tag

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

My own view of the building tag is that it notes what the building looks
like to someone on the ground. If it's a fairly generic building then
obviously the current use is a fairly good indicator. Something like a
church or pub though often still retains the characteristics of that type
of building even when internally converted. As long as it still externally
looks like a church or pub that is what I tag the building as.

Adam

On 16 Dec 2017 4:35 p.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 16. Dec 2017, at 09:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > The building page on the wiki [1] lists e.g a church, cathedral and
> chapel.
> > But what is the structural difference between a church and a cathedral
> > ? I always thought a cathedral is where a bishop leads the messes (or
> > something like that).
>
>
> yes, AFAIK a cathedral is the main church of a diocese in certain
> denominations like roman-catholic, it is the church where the bishop
> or archbishop has his seat, and it is therefore also typically the
> biggest and most important church of the area. Structurally you will
> find cathedrals in general to be bigger than other churches, although
> there can be pretty big churches as well. Technically, "cathedral" is
> more a title than a certain type, while there are specific sub-types,
> in particular "gothic cathedrals" (mainly in France).
>
>
>
> > The wiki page on cathedral tries to avoid this by saying some
> > buildings are build as cathedral but without a bishop, without saying
> > how one can see the difference between a cathedral and a church.
>
>
> I would leave this decision to the church. If they call it a cathedral
> it is one.
>
>
>
> > I understand that chapels can be attached to other buildings, but they
> > can also be free standing. But how different are the bigs ones then
> > from a small church ?
>
>
> chapels might be there for a certain purpose, e.g. on cemeteries or in
> baptisteries, or part of a bigger structure (even a train station, an
> airport, a hotel, a convent, a hospital or palace). Again, I'd go here
> by what it is called  by the church.
>
>
> > I see similar problems with rectangular buildings with one or two
> > entrances a couple of floors, a flat roof and a lot of windows. They
> > can be schools, commercial, apartments, civic buildings. I guess one
> > has to take the interior division into account as well to determine
> > the type, not ?
>
>
> residential buildings are typically different from administrative
> buildings regarding the unit size and inner organization, entrances,
> corridors, stairs, sanitary blocks, etc.. You won't typically have
> difficulties telling which kind it is, if you enter. Of course, very
> neutral "architecture" like containers might be usable as
> (construction site) offices and also as tempory emergency residence.
>
>
>
> > So can a commercial building change to a school when the interior wall
> > are changed? And if so, why is a church not changed into an apartment
> > building when the interior changes ?
> >
> > Or are we just wishing that building refers to the structure and not
> > the function ?
> > Or am I overthinking the whole topic ?
>
>
> yes, convertions are generally possible, it depends on economic and
> cultural factors if they are done. Some structures are clearly more
> universally usable and easier to convert into a different usage then
> what they were built for, compared to others. It also depends on the
> amount of compromise, an inhabitant is willing to accept, on the
> individual lifestyle (some people like living in industrial
> buildings), etc.
>
>
> > Those questions came up after I tried to answer a question on a barn
> > used as church and community centre on the help website.
>
>
> as you say it is a barn used as a church, I'd say building=barn
> If you had said: a barn converted to a church, building=church you
> should have considered building=church. ;-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

The British terminology for this is a 'non-geographic postcode'. I suggest
that this terminology might make a more appropriate general tag because
a) The purpose of the tag to indicate the non-geographic nature of the
postcode, not the volume of post the address recieves
and
b) Special postcodes may be allocated for reasons other than sheer volume
of mail.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 17 December 2017 at 12:42, Rainer  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> recently I came across postal codes in POI addresses, which aren't the
> classic scheme addr:postcode & addr:city & addr:street & addr:housenumber.
> However it is a special postcode that is assigned to recipients that
> receive a big amount of post every day, typically big companies or
> authorities. This kind of postcode is used only together with addr:city and
> does not require street and housenumber. So to say the post company has a
> big sack for post to that special postcode, puts in all the letters that
> are addressed to it and delivers the sack to the recipient.
> After some discussion in the german user forum
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60421 I want to propose
> a tag for this kind of postcode and would like to discuss it here in the
> tagging mailing list.
>
> The proposal is:  addr:postcode_major_recipient
>
> It should be used on POIs, because it is an attribute of the company,
> authority or whatever, but not as an address of a building, because it is
> not assigned to such directly. Target is to have a separate tag for this
> kind of postcode to avoid a mix-up with the normal addr:postcode.
>
> As I am not a native British English speaker, I have asked one and
> consulted the english page of the Deutsche Post. Reference:
> https://www.postdirekt.de/plzserver/PlzSearchServlet?lang=en_GB -> goto
> More -> Find major recipient
>
> Probably similar kinds of postcodes exist also in other post companies in
> other countries, so inputs about that are welcome.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Rainer
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Adam Snape]

The use of these tags within the UK seems to be relatively unproblematic
because they are UK terms that people in the UK understand and recognise as
distinct from things like parks, gardens and recreation grounds. These tags
have taken on new meanings in other countries which some view as
problematic. I have no opinion on how other mapping communities use these
particular tags, but the notion of discouraging the explicit tagging of
these features even within the UK seems bizarre. Yes, OSM is a global
database, but that is not to say that country-specific feaures ought not to
be explicitly tagged. OSm is - I think - a great means of recording such
diversity. I don't particularly see a problem with tags being used to mean
subtly different things in different countries as long as there is
consistency within countries. I don't expect features tagged
leisure=nature_reserve or highway=secondary in the UK to be very similar to
similarly tagged features in Botswana.

Adam
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[Adam Snape]

Might access tags for emergency service personnel be a solution for a
non-existant problem? Are there really many places which the emergency
services are explicitly legally prohibited from accessing?

Adam

On 31 October 2017 at 09:00, joost schouppe 
wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
> Of course a single bad link is not enough. I also didn't realize how many
> objects are already tagged with emergency=yes.
>
> I've never liked the way access is implied on all the specific tags, where
> we write access:bicycle as bicycle. IMHO, it makes the tagging scheme more
> complicated to understand for a new mapper.
> Since emergency can be used in two different ways, it makes it harder to
> get an idea of what values are used in the access sence and which in the
> amenity sense. Theoretically, you could have a road which has both some
> sensible emergency-amenity AND emergency-access. I haven't seen many of
> those though, e.g. I guess you could consider a road also tagged as an
> ambulance_station or a coastal_defence as simple mistakes.
>
> Looking at the values used in the context of emergency, I do think there's
> need for some decent documentation. The general access values don't mention
> things like ambulance, fire_fighters, fire_truck etc.). In the spirit of
> other access tags, I suppose these should rather be ambulance=yes instead
> of emergency=ambulance.
>
> 2017-10-31 9:26 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> *separate section for meaning
>>
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Single bad link on wiki is not a good reason for mass edit worldwide,
>> changing all editors, changing all data consumers, changing habits of all
>> users using this tag, introducing confusing and unusual prefix (it is not
>> like OSM tagging scheme requires more confusing things) and changing all
>> pages on wiki describing this tag.
>>
>> Just fix the bad link, separate section four meaning as an access tag
>> makes sense.
>>
>> On 30 Oct 2017 11:08 a.m., "joost schouppe" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On the access page, there is a described use for emergency=* . However,
>>> when you click through, you get to a page to a tag that describes all sorts
>>> of amenities related to emergency.
>>>
>>> Would this be a reason to retag emergency when related to access as the
>>> implied tag access:emergency=*, and then make a new wiki page about
>>> access:emergency ? Or would it be enough to add a section to the
>>> emergency=* wiki page to explain that it can ALSO be used as an implied
>>> access:emergency tag?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joost Schouppe
>>> OpenStreetMap  |
>>> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>>>  | Meetup
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway:bicycle

[Adam Snape]

An unknown value cannot be meaningfully used by routers etc. You could add
a fixme tag so that a local mapper can clarify the signs on the ground. If
there is no mention of cycles on signage then it should be assumed that the
one-way restriction applies equally to cycles (unless the country's laws
exclude cycles from one way restrictions).

Regards,

Adam

On 26 Aug 2017 6:22 p.m., "Alexis Reynouard" 
wrote:

Is there an accepted/good way to differ between *"it is a oneway for
everyone, including bicycles"* and *"it is a oneway, but it is unknown if
it is also a oneway for bicycles"*.

>From the OSM wiki:

you can use oneway:bicycle=* to identify roads where the oneway rules for
cyclists differ from the general oneway restriction


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Names containing abbreviations that are the official name

[Adam Snape]

On 27 July 2017 at 21:20, Tom Pfeifer  wrot
>
>
> There are pronunciation dictionaries for different languages, which are
> not thicker than spelling dictionaries. In electronic form they would
> measure in kilobytes, and be included in the dozens of megabytes a TTS
> engine comes with, for each language module. So the correct spelling of
> common geonames as Edinburgh should be an easy exercise
>

 I was just using Edinburgh as an example most English speakers are
familiar with. Whilst I would expect software to be familiar with major
cities like Edinburgh it is much more unlikely to be able to deal with the
pronunciation of all the smaller named objects in OSM. A means of tagging
pronunciation, where this is not obvious from the spelling would be a
useful addition to osm.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Names containing abbreviations that are the official name

[Adam Snape]

As long as it was clear from the tag (as it is in your example) that it was
a spoken rather than written form of the name then I wouldn't have  a
problem with it. To be most useful such a tag should not just exist for TTS
software, it could also be of use where the pronunciation is not clear from
the spelling eg. Edinburgh. There are a small number of instances of such
tagging already in use
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=pronunciation

Kind regards,

Adam

On 27 July 2017 at 11:49, Michal Fabík  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> > name='St. Louis' and name_full='Saint Louis' for pronunciation.
>
> Hi,
> speaking of pronunciation, I was thinking about this too. In Czechia,
> we have many cases of official street names containing abbreviations
> and sometimes numbers, such as "Charles IV. sq.". Obviously, this
> won't work with text-to-speech software any time soon, so my satnav
> will either spell out the letters (Charles eye vee [pause] es queue
> [pause]) or attempt to pronounce them as words, resulting in
> gibberish.
>
> Another example are street names like "2. korpusa Armije BiH" (a
> street dedicated to the 2nd Corps of the Bosnian army) which is all in
> genitive case, literally "of the 2nd Corps of the Army of Bosnia and
> Herzegovina", the word "Ulica" (Street) is not always included, even
> in official usage (cadastre etc.). The TTS software probably knows
> that "2" stands for "dva" ("two"), it might know that "2." stands for
> "drugi" ("second"), it might even know that "BiH" stands for "Bosna i
> Hercegovina", but unless it actually understands the language, it has
> no way of telling that the whole thing stands for "Drugog korpusa
> Armije Bosne i Hercegovine" (genitive case) and not "Drugi korpusa
> Armije Bosna i Hercegovina", a grammatical nonsense.
>
> Couldn't we simply use something along the lines of "name:tts=charles
> the fourth square", or name:tts="drugog korpusa armije bosne i
> hercegovine" with everything in full?"
>
> I was discussing this with Janko Mihelić the other day, maybe he has
> more examples / use cases to add.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Michal Fabík
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Adam Snape]

Hi

I wasn't arguing in favour of the change, merely addressing John Willis'
concern. I suppose the intention might be to reduce the likelihood of
erroneous descriptive name tags such as name=tree. New mappers sometimes
often fail to realise that name boxes in the editors often should be left
blank. I suspect that JOSM users are much less likely to make this mistake.
Then again, I suspect they are also much less likely to be deterred from
leaving a name because there is no preset name box.

Regards,

Adam

On 22 July 2017 at 14:24, Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> wrote:

> On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> > On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
> >> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
> >> would it remove name tags from existing trees.
> >
> > But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset?
> > if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
> > Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees
> > that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so
> > worth recording it.
>
> If I remember right, we have this field on highway=traffic_signals even
> though only one country (Japan) uses it.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody adding a
name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor would it
remove name tags from existing trees.

Regards,

Adam

On 22 July 2017 at 12:47, John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Jul 22, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Pander 
> wrote:
> >
> > 5. remove key `name` as it is rare for trees
>
> As a person who has tagged a named tree, please don’t remove it.
>
> A tree was named and planted near my house 300 years ago, and it is a
> local tourist spot.  There is no park, no other kind of infrastructure.
> Just a tree.
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of cycleway=no

[Adam Snape]

highway=cycleway + cycleway=no can only logically be interpreted as a cycle
way where there is no separation of cycle traffic from other users of the
cycleway. The segregated=no tag would be more appropriate for that scenario

Regards,

Adam

On 18 Jul 2017 9:57 p.m., "Wiktor Niesiobedzki"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Recently I read in OSM Weekly about new maps by MapCat. Driven by
> curiosity I opened this map and when I switched to bike mode in my
> city I notice a lot of non-existing cycling infrastructure. After
> investigation I discovered that MapCat renders all values of cycleway
> as bike lane, what in presence of "no" value is an apparent bug[1].
>
> Looking on taginfo, it seems, that cycleway=no is second most used value
> in OSM:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway#values
>
> Though I find it hard to understand, what it means. We could give a
> lot of tags with "no" value - building=no on landuse= and highway= and
> so on. Even I found combination of highway=cycleway + cycleway=no.
>
> As I asked this question on Polish OSM forum and Mateusz updated wiki
> page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Other_values
> with description of "no" value.
>
> Can anybody point me to explanation of this tag value? Should it's use
> be discouraged by validators / presets? (at least combinations as
> highway=cycleway + cycleway=no)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wiktor
>
> [1] - https://mapcat.userecho.com/topics/69-do-not-render-
> cyclewayno-as-bike-lane/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of cycleway=no

[Adam Snape]

I agree with Wiktor that we shoud use the access tag bicycle=no when
cycling' is prohibited.
I agree with Volker that the logical meaning of cycleway=no is that there
are no cycle tracks or lanes along a section of highway. This might be
useful information in a similar way to sidewalk=no, not useless like
building=no  landuse=no.

On 19 Jul 2017 8:43 a.m., "Wiktor Niesiobedzki"  wrote:

> 2017-07-18 23:32 GMT+02:00 marc marc :
> > Le 18. 07. 17 à 22:55, Wiktor Niesiobedzki a écrit :
> >> Can anybody point me to explanation of this tag value?
> >
> > I would use this tag only whre there is a traffic_sign that forbit
> > cycling where it shoul be allowed without this sign
>
> Why not "bicycle=no" in such situation?
>
> >
> >> Should it's use be discouraged by validators / presets?
> >> (at least combinations as highway=cycleway + cycleway=no)
> >
> > It seems to be an error.
> > maybe ask the contributor for the meaning of those tags
>
> Haven't found recent contribution with cycleway=no. Most of those that
> I investigated where ~3-5 years old.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wiktor
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging