Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[André Pirard]

Hi,

In this thread, I said, in agreement with others,
that oneway:bicycle
=no (click to
open that page) is the tag to be used *to tell routing software**(GPS)*
that *oneway*=yes does
not apply to bicycles
that cycleway
=opposite* has noting
to do with routing and contraflow but indicates that *there is a
cycleway* that *happens* to be "opposite".

Could you please make the wiki documentation more clear about that?
Because mappers often believe that cycleway=oppositemeans to indicate
bicycle contraflow oneway:bicycle=no.
Unfortunately, sometimes contradictory sentences about the same concept
are often spread all over the wiki.
Find them all!

I have written this script

to find where many cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no
and even without oneway=yes.

Look at this street  to
which GRi added cycleway=opposite without oneway:bicycle=no, to which
JanFi added oneway:bicycle=no  probably after reading this thread (thank
you!) and from which I removed cycleway=opposite because there is no
cycleway at all.

The worst of all is that the map
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/%7Eligfietser/fiets/ shows
"cycleway=opposite or oneway:bicycle=no" ways, hence neither identifying
the cycleways  nor the contraflow correctly and not testing in its bugs
tag that cycleway=opposite must contain oneway:bicycle=no.
That is pitiful complete misinformation and the author did not even
reply to my message.

Unfortunately, I'm very sorry to say, OSM is often much of a chaos.

Hoping this will help,
Cheers

André.



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[Santens Seppe]

Oh yes, one more thing: traffic signs are often contradictory (e.g. different 
message at beginning and end of the street), which of course is very 
frustrating…

Van: Santens Seppe
Verzonden: vrijdag 3 maart 2017 10:45
Aan: 'OpenStreetMap Belgium'
Onderwerp: RE: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

Thanks for this script André. It’s simple, but it clearly shows where there is 
work to do.
I’ve corrected a few situations in Ghent. Some remarks/questions:

·I’ve seen the combination of oneway=no and cycleway=opposite. I guess 
the latter tag should (always?) be deleted in this case (of course given that 
the oneway=no is correct). Or could there be a reason why it is there?

·Things can get complicated/confusing when you have a separately mapped 
cycle track running along the way that is tagged with oneway=yes (and possibly 
bicycle=use_sidepath).

·I think it’s a good idea to always tag oneway:bicycle=yes in 
combination with oneway=yes where applicable (because not having an exception 
for bicycles in a oneway=yes street is usually an exception, if you get what I 
mean). This could help verification by others.

Cheers,

Seppe

Van: André Pirard [mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 14 februari 2017 17:35
Aan: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools; OpenStreetMap Belgium
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

I once read that routes of cyclists using OSM were laughed at by the others...

oneway=yes<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway> is a routing tag 
(used by GSM) indicating that only one way of the highway can be used.
That page says that the exception for bicycles to run contraflow is 
oneway:bicycle<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=no.
And that cycleway<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=opposite* 
is added for compatibility.
Also, Key:cycleway says that 
oneway:bicycle<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle>=no. must 
be used with cycleway=opposite.

All in all it makes much sense that only one 
oneway:bicycle<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle>=no 
routing tag be used to allow bicycle contraflow.
And that other tags like cycleway=* are not routing tags to be used by routing 
software (GSM).
They are just tags giving more detail about how the bicycles run.
Why would a multitude of duplicating routing tags like detour:bicycle=yes or 
shortcut:bicycle=yes be used Indeed?

Unfortunately, while writing an overpass script I noticed that many 
cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no and even without oneway=yes.
Please run this 
script<http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%0A%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%5Btimeout%3A60%5D%3B%0A%2F%2F%20gather%20results%0A%28%0A%20%20%2F%2F%20query%20%0A%20way%5B%21%22oneway%3Abicycle%22%5D%5Bcycleway%7E%22opposite%22%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0A%20%20%0A%29%3B%0A%2F%2F%20print%20results%0Aout%20body%3B%0A%3E%3B%0Aout%20skel%20qt%3B%0A%0A>
 to find some of them.
I'm not going to give the nonOSM people I work with overly complicated 
instructions.  I'm not going to make a complicated script. To write it "for the 
errors".

Could we please correct those mistakes?

Cheers
André.


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[Santens Seppe]

Thanks for this script André. It’s simple, but it clearly shows where there is 
work to do.
I’ve corrected a few situations in Ghent. Some remarks/questions:

·I’ve seen the combination of oneway=no and cycleway=opposite. I guess 
the latter tag should (always?) be deleted in this case (of course given that 
the oneway=no is correct). Or could there be a reason why it is there?

·Things can get complicated/confusing when you have a separately mapped 
cycle track running along the way that is tagged with oneway=yes (and possibly 
bicycle=use_sidepath).

·I think it’s a good idea to always tag oneway:bicycle=yes in 
combination with oneway=yes where applicable (because not having an exception 
for bicycles in a oneway=yes street is usually an exception, if you get what I 
mean). This could help verification by others.

Cheers,

Seppe

Van: André Pirard [mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 14 februari 2017 17:35
Aan: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools; OpenStreetMap Belgium
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

I once read that routes of cyclists using OSM were laughed at by the others...

oneway=yes is a routing tag 
(used by GSM) indicating that only one way of the highway can be used.
That page says that the exception for bicycles to run contraflow is 
oneway:bicycle=no.
And that cycleway=opposite* 
is added for compatibility.
Also, Key:cycleway says that 
oneway:bicycle=no. must 
be used with cycleway=opposite.

All in all it makes much sense that only one 
oneway:bicycle=no 
routing tag be used to allow bicycle contraflow.
And that other tags like cycleway=* are not routing tags to be used by routing 
software (GSM).
They are just tags giving more detail about how the bicycles run.
Why would a multitude of duplicating routing tags like detour:bicycle=yes or 
shortcut:bicycle=yes be used Indeed?

Unfortunately, while writing an overpass script I noticed that many 
cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no and even without oneway=yes.
Please run this 
script
 to find some of them.
I'm not going to give the nonOSM people I work with overly complicated 
instructions.  I'm not going to make a complicated script. To write it "for the 
errors".

Could we please correct those mistakes?

Cheers
André.


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[Yves bxl-forever]

Yes, this looks like we are in agreement, thanks Marc.

I wonder about one more thing: supposing the cycle lane is only in the 
contraflow direction, and if the way was drawn in the direction of traffic, 
what is the difference between:
* cycleway=opposite_lane
* cycleway:left=lane

I have encountered both situations and they seem to say the same thing, but I 
would like to know whether one should be the recommended way.

Cheers.
Yves 



On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:06:19 +0100
Marc Gemis  wrote:

> opposite_lane should only be used when there is a lane in the opposite
> direction of the one_way and there is no lane in the direction of the
> oneway. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane
> Or as indicated in the above M1, when you tag forward/backward
> separately. It is not enough to indicate a oneway street with cycle
> lanes in both directions.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Yves bxl-forever
 wrote:
> Despite Belgian traffic rules use the same word (fietspad - piste cyclable) 
> for a reserved track (with D7 or D9 signs) and for markings (two stripped 
> lines), in OSM-taal those could be tagged with cycleway=opposite_track and 
> cycleway=opposite_lane respectively.  In Brussels, it is fairly common to 
> paint logos or inverted V-signs on the street but those have no legally 
> binding value a


I "hate" this opposite_xxx tag. IMHO, it is used incorrectly in most cases.

oneway:bicycle=no  + cycleway=track/lane is recommended, see e.g. M1
on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

opposite_lane should only be used when there is a lane in the opposite
direction of the one_way and there is no lane in the direction of the
oneway. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite_lane
Or as indicated in the above M1, when you tag forward/backward
separately. It is not enough to indicate a oneway street with cycle
lanes in both directions.
I have seen it even used when there are no lanes, i.e. the cyclists
have to drive on the main road.

So please do not recommend it's use.

regards

m.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no

[Yves bxl-forever]

Hi,

André is right but I think that part of the problem comes from the fact that 
the available documentation is sometimes contradictory.
A good starting point for anyone wanting to learn more is the Belgian 
conventions page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Cycleways).

Indeed, oneway:bicycle=no is the recommended tag if cyclists can use the way in 
both directions.  This works best with most apps.

Using additional tags to describe more precisely the kind of infrastructure the 
users will enjoy is nevertheless helpful, for routing apps, for statistics 
about rate of protection, etc.
Despite Belgian traffic rules use the same word (fietspad - piste cyclable) for 
a reserved track (with D7 or D9 signs) and for markings (two stripped lines), 
in OSM-taal those could be tagged with cycleway=opposite_track and 
cycleway=opposite_lane respectively.  In Brussels, it is fairly common to paint 
logos or inverted V-signs on the street but those have no legally binding value 
and would probably not count as anything with "cycleway" in it.

I know that the wiki is not always the Bible but I saw that someone has 
recently rewritten the page about cycleway=opposite 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite), to recommend 
*against* oneway:bicycle=no.  Shouldn’t we try to find a way to clarify this, 
so that we could tell new users how to map properly?


Cheers.
Yves




On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:33:36 +0100
"André Pirard"  wrote:

> I once read that routes of cyclists using OSM were laughed at by the others...
> 
> oneway=yes is a routing tag (used by GSM) indicating that only one way of the 
> highway can be used.
> That page says that the exception for bicycles to run contraflow is 
> oneway:bicycle=no.
> And that cycleway=opposite* is added for compatibility.
> Also, Key:cycleway says that oneway:bicycle=no. must be used with 
> cycleway=opposite.
> 
> All in all it makes much sense that only one oneway:bicycle=no routing tag be 
> used to allow bicycle contraflow.
> And that other tags like cycleway=* are not routing tags to be used by 
> routing software (GSM).
> They are just tags giving more detail about how the bicycles run.
> Why would a multitude of duplicating routing tags like detour:bicycle=yes or 
> shortcut:bicycle=yes be used Indeed?
> 
> Unfortunately, while writing an overpass script I noticed that many 
> cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no and even without 
> oneway=yes.
> Please run this script to find some of them.
> I'm not going to give the nonOSM people I work with overly complicated 
> instructions.  I'm not going to make a complicated script. To write it "for 
> the errors".
> 
> Could we please correct those mistakes?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> André.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be