Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway={opposite, opposite_lane}?

[Christian Müller]

OSM is a thing of beauty and a job forever.

If the distant goal changed from sticking to
ground truth, we may also accept fake islands
and fantasy cities again, instead of consequently
removing them.

And no, even if I wanted to replace them all,
I could not, for lack of resources and because
of people defending the status quo in the data-
base rather than ground truth.  I'm a fan of
moving forward slowly, but being conservative
about wrong data won't be of help to anyone.


Regards,
cmuelle8


> On 03/18/19. 21:46 Markus wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, many tags are used wrongly (e.g. name, access tags,
> grass, water park) – do you want to replace all of them?

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 17. März 2019 um 14:04 Uhr schrieb Markus :

> I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible
> than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you
> need one tag less.




I disagree, cycleway:left=opposite_lane is clearly about a bicycle lane in
an "opposite" direction, but it remains unclear to what "opposite" refers
(direction of OSM way or direction you would expect from the jurisdiction),
and it doesn't make it clear whether this has oneway implications (the wiki
says so, but the data doesn't support it, see below).

There seems to be more confusion about this tag in the wiki, e.g. here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway:right%3Dlane I read that
cycleway=opposite_lane is used for locations with 2 bike lanes (trail is to
mean "lane" on that page?)? Here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane it says it
is "Used on a one-way street that has a cycling lane going in the opposite
direction to normal traffic flow"
Looking at actual data it seems more than 10% of the roads with this tag
also have an explicit oneway=no and roughly one third (!) do not have any
oneway tag, which directly contradicts the definition.

IMHO we should have 2 distinct tags: one for position (left right both) and
nature (lane or track) of the cycle infrastructure, and one for oneway or
not on these elements.
As the opposite_lane tag does not follow the definition (almost half of the
objects would be "wrong"), it should be deprecated.

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Christian Müller]

Yes, all of them, rationale:

For cycleway=opposite_track or cycleway=opposite_lane
you won't know which track or lane it refers to (or if
it refers to both), if two lanes or tracks accompany
the road.

cycleway=opposite (in the sense that no lane is marked
and no track exists, but cycling a oneway in opposite
direction allowed) is effectively the same as using
oneway:bicycle=no

Your concern about using one tag less:  I only agree
half the way that this is true, because

a) opposite_lane is not _a_ value, but rather a value
combination, it expresses (like the semicola based
approach) two different things in one value

b) If you strictly tag tracks explicitly, you can imply
that cycleway:left:oneway=-1  also means
cycleway:left=lane.

c) cycleway:left_lane:oneway=-1 or cycleway:left:lane:oneway=-1
also has all the information in one tag, but I personally do
not think that this should be a design goal.

Legal direction and cycleway type are conceptually to separate
things, why should they not be expressed using two tags?


Greetings

> On 03/17/19, 13:03, Markus wrote:
> >
> > I support discouraging both opposite* values.
> 
> I suppose you mean all three?
> 
> [..]
> 
> I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible
> than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you
> need one tag less.

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 17, 2019, 10:50 AM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated 
>> contraflow lane.
>>
>
> cycleway=no + oneway:bicycle=no is much clearer in my opinion.
>
> I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often
> confused with cycleway=opposite_lane.
>
Using cycleway=no for this purpose is OK for me.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:38, "Christian Müller"  wrote:
>
> I support discouraging both opposite* values.

I suppose you mean all three?

> Re-using oneway semantics is easy.  oneway is an established
> tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not
> reshaped in an obscure way it is reusable in all its namespace
> variants with confidence and no frills.

I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible
than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you
need one tag less.

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose 
> position and direction are opposite to the direction you would expect (e.g. 
> it is left for right traffic jurisdictions), right?

No, that's cycleway=opposite_track. cycleway=opposite is for
"situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for
cyclists". [1]

> Would you add it in case the track is explicitly mapped? In other words, is 
> it a property of the road and independent from an explicitly mapped cycleway, 
> or is it either or?

If there's a separate carriageway for bicycles ("cycle track"), i tag
the road cycleway=separate. This is also what the wiki recommends. [1]

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Christian Müller]

I support discouraging both opposite* values.

Re-using oneway semantics is easy.  oneway is an established
tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not
reshaped in an obscure way it is reusable in all its namespace
variants with confidence and no frills.

I'm also in favour of a better separation in the documentation
to cycleway related tags.  The doc should make it clear how
and why the concepts differ.  Judging from the mailing list
discussions most people do not seem to get the intention of
the different tagging schemes available, or more loosely even
tend to claim that there is no difference involved at all.

Another lesson learnt, is that a documented list of values
absolutely should be accompanied by a claim of whether that
list is open to additions or not.  For example, some tagging
schemes loose their descriptive power if the set of values
is overloaded with this and that and then whatnot.


Greetings


> On 03/17/19, 09:50, Markus wrote:
> 
> I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often
> confused with cycleway=opposite_lane.

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Mar 2019, at 10:50, Markus  wrote:
> 
> I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often
> confused with cycleway=opposite_lane.


cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose 
position and direction are opposite to the direction you would expect (e.g. it 
is left for right traffic jurisdictions), right? Shouldn’t this be either 
cycleway:left, :right or :both? The meaning depends on the road being oneway or 
not?
Would you add it in case the track is explicitly mapped? In other words, is it 
a property of the road and independent from an explicitly mapped cycleway, or 
is it either or?

Or does it include both, tracks and lanes? There is also some usage of 
opposite_track.

IMHO the default should be cycleway=no 

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated 
> contraflow lane.

cycleway=no + oneway:bicycle=no is much clearer in my opinion.

I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often
confused with cycleway=opposite_lane.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated 
contraflow lane.

This way all oneway:bicycle=no have either cycleway=opposite or 
cycleway=opposite_lane
or are waiting for survey.


Mar 17, 2019, 8:37 AM by thesw...@gmail.com:

> On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> I didn’t know this tag, historically the cycleway tags were used for bicycle 
>> infrastructure, seems people are working to change this.
>>
>
> I didn't say I liked the cycleway=shared tag. There are a lot of highways in 
> Australia tagged with this and I wouldn't ride on any of them. I'm assuming 
> that routers should treat them the same as cycleway=no.
>
> This does raise the question: do we still need the cycleway=opposite tag? Is 
> there some characteristic of the street that is not captured by just the 
> bicycle:oneway=no tag?
>
> A question for the Euromappers I think (haven't seen a "cycle plug" in 
> Australia).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
>

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