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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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