This sounds similar to those that suggested adding oneway=no to all streets that are not explicitly tagged as oneway=yes. All roads without cycleways could conceivably be tagged this way. Unless there is some cause for such a tag, for example, noting that a cycleway once existed here but is no longer present, this tag is totally unnecessary and adds needless data to OSM.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:50 AM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit : > > > There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being > > added by users of StreetComplete. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 > > > > There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit > > ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no > > suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction. > > I agree that cycleway:both=no is not a good tag. > cycleway=no is better. > > > What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging > > scheme: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway > > ask the dev :) > > > Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness". > > I could help to see what road have been surveyed and somebody see that > this road doesn't have a cycleway. Put in urban area, it's a (minor) > added value. Without a cycleway tag, the cycleway is unknown. > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > it's also a dubious usefulness :) > > Regards, > Marc > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
