Hi Robjn:

Thank you for your help! I was inactive in OSM for about 2 years.Therefore I forgot some tricks. Obviously now I have met a minor editor. If It would have shown me that tag, I wouldn’t have invented a new one.

Nevertheless I’d like to suggest a simplification: If vor each kind of trafic “yes” would be for bidirectional and “oneway” (instead of “yes”) would be for unidirectional, the code would be shorter, less work for the authors and less work for the renderer machines.

Ulamm

The Lübeck team already has developed an enlarged code, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren_L%C3%BCbecker_Methode For German conditions it is very good. For the compulsory cycletracks they use “bicycle=designated” or “bicycle=official”, for the optional ones “cycling=yes”. The letter one is o.k. For the compulsory ones “bicycle=designated” is specifically German, as in France there are two different signs, the round one for the compulsoray cycletracks and a rectangular one for the optional cycletracks. And “offical” is not better as the optional ones are official, too.

Ulamm

To Zarl: I know authors of Lübeck cyclemap and I shall contact them personally.

Ulamm

I didn’t call it a nonsense to open one way roads for bidirectional cycle traffic. I’ve called it a nonsense to mark two ways, one for cars and one for cycling, if there is one way for both in reality. (I enjoy this kind of regulations in Belgium and France as well as in Germany, Switzerland, Czechia and Austria.)

And I have complained that by the data-construction of OSM the possibility of marking the different regulations for different kinds of vehicles is hidden.

Ulamm

Answers to Escada:

The tag suggested and approved in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidepath is also used, but it does not show your rights as a cyclist to cycle quicklier and surer than un cyclepaths.

The tags I have found for oneway streets were “yes”, “no” and “unknown”, the tags motor_vehicle = “yes” or “no” bicyle =”yes” or “no” were for the use of the carriageway at all, not for directions allowed.

Using one tag “highway=oneway street” and another tag “cycleway=no oneway street” seems nonsense, if motor traffic and cycling physically happen in the same part of the street.

Furthermore it is not helpful, if the ordinary editor does not show all tags for cycle trafic.

Ulamm

• Before I wrote “facultative”, I looked in Cassel’s :) But I don’t object to use “optional” instead. • If the cycletrack-tag is used, the existing ignorant renderers will show it as a cycletrack.* But the chance to get better renderers is bigger, if the recording of the informations wanted has already started. • Of course, the terms used must be as standardized as possible, even before they are accepted officially. • I hope to iniciate a local project for improving input and output of OSM. Perhaps that is more successful than to convince some people in California. • Thank you for telling me an address more central for my suggestions. *) The present OCM-renderer doesn’t tell you if a “cyclepath” is 3 meters of asphalt or 30 cm of ill-kept gravel, if it is a well traced smooth bikelane or of you are ordered to share a narrow sidewalk with the pedestrians. It is the expression of the belief, that any cyclepath were better than cycling on a road. That is worse than nothig. Ulamm

(Geodatum meines Wohnortes genauer)

(Geodatum meines Wohnortes genauer)