sent from a phone
> On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote: > > I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see > above). Wouldn't you? it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway, it's ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it comes to the details. A distinct carriageway should sooner or later get its own way, IMHO, so this is not something I personally would do anyway (because I'm fine with relying on geometry and won't add explicit cycleway=track tags with my own interpretation of which cycleways are associated with which streets). Cycleway=* is a property, it says a highway has cycle infrastructure attached (a lane or a nearby track). highway=cycleway is a distinct cycleway. There's no contradiction or duplication if you do both: say with a tag that a road has a cycleway nearby and add this cycleway explicitly as distinct geometry. This is similar to adding the bridge=yes property to ways on bridges AND map the (same) bridge as man_made=bridge, perfectly fine (for bridges at least). On the other hand the wiki says since 2013 that you shouldn't add the cycleway=track tag to roads where the cycleway is already explicitly mapped: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway so it might be seen as an error. It all boils down to common interpretation of tags (and with the wiki continuously changing and more and more people starting to map, what you think today is established meaning might change tomorrow, very unfortunately as I would like to add). cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
