2015-05-16 17:41 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub <markus.straub...@gmail.com>:
> another late reply :) > Just in time for me. :) I am in general not sure if it's a good idea to use oneway:bicycle to > infer information regarding cycleway:*, since there could be > cycleway:left and cycleway:right - should it apply to one of them? or > both? > Yes, there is no consensus for some cases. One such case is when the cycleway is running on both sides of the two-way street and one of them is one-way. (If the street is one-way then either side is opposite_{track,lane} so oneway:bicycle applies to the other side - doesn't make a sense to apply oneway:bicycle to opposite_* cycleway.) A clearer and less ambigous way could be to use this > (cycleway:*:oneway is slightly in use - see taginfo): > cycleway:right=lane > cycleway:right:oneway=yes (optional, a lane is by default unidirectional) > cycleway:left=track > cycleway:left:oneway=yes > I think it's a viable proposal to extend the current consensus for special cases (and cycleway:{left,right}:oneway value should be "yes" or "-1" to describe the direction). I think I will support it in my map. I found an interesting talk topic <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:cycleway#Two-way_track.2Flane_on_one_side_of_the_road> too. However, the current consensus is not bad. It covers almost all cases out there and always better to follow the current consensus/recommendation while we can. You are right, the tagging is a bit unclear when reading through the > examples on the Wiki page. Until now I was not aware of this > additional "usage" of oneway:bicycle. For me this was just a way to > clearly state that the road is, in one way or another, usable in both > directions for cyclists. Do you need help to fix tagging in Wien? I could find all ambiguous cases on overpass with a search for: cycleway:left={lane,track} + cycleway:left=opposite_{lane,track} + oneway:bicycle=no. Will break your map if we simply remove oneway:bicycle key if there is an opposite_* cycleway? It's definitely complex to handle all this information correctly, my > shot at this topic is www.radlkarte.at Agreed, I also struggled a lot. I haven't seen before, nicer than mine! > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Pallai Roland <pall...@magex.hu> wrote: > > (I subscribed to the list temporary.) > > > > 2015-05-10 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pallai Roland <pall...@magex.hu>: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> 2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub <markus.straub...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for > unpaved > >> cyclepaths. > >> > >> Now I have ran into a problem with the following way: > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548 > >> > >> Based on the wiki page this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very > >> similar to M2d, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that > >> there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I > think > >> it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see M1). > >> > >> You can see the problem on my map: the lane is rendered with thick line > >> what means "usable in both directions". > >> > >> What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind? > >> > >>> > >>> P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project! > >> > >> > >> http://merretekerjek.hu > >> > >> The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and > >> course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map > style > >> based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too > much > >> to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge > and > >> some will become clear. > >> The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to > >> provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to > catch > >> incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs. > >> Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my > >> taste, because there is much higher "bicycle facility density" than I > was > >> used but I'm trying to adapt. > >> > >> The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some > >> time to consolidate the project. > >> > >> > >> Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in > >> my spare time. > >> > >> > >>> On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has > >>>> been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's > >>>> unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: > >>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p > >>>> > >>>> Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic > sign > >>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png> > in > >>>> Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways > in > >>>> the city? Are those designated for cyclists? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's > >>>> never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists > >>>> (traffic sign <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png > >) > >>>> on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but > >>>> not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's > >>>> just incorrect labeling. > >> > >> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at