Changes between Initial Version and Version 6 of Ticket #22928


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2023-05-07T14:27:32+02:00 (3 years ago)
Author:
skyper
Comment:

Replying to GerdP:

Please clarify the description. I use bicycle=use_sidepath often and I see no need to add a tag like cycleway=separate. I agree that a combination like cycleway=both + bicycle=use_sidepath should produce a warning.

Hope the description is a bit better, now.

Replying to Famlam:

Probably good to exclude any highway that contains bicycle:conditional, bicycle:forward/backward/both_ways:conditional for this check.

I would expect cycleway:conditional or similar then.

There might be some more combinations with oneway=yes.

Be additionally aware of oneway:bicycle, oneway:conditional, oneway:bicycle:conditional in this case :)

Yes, I am aware of oneway:bicycle. For *:conditional again, I would expect all tags to carry the suffix.

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #22928 – Description

    initial v6  
    1 `bicycle=use_sidepath` is only valid with `cycleway=separate` and `cycleway:both=separate`. Additionally `bicycle:forward/backward=use_sidepath` is only valid with `cycleway:right/left=separate`. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/widerspruchlich-getaggte-rad-und-fusswege/98297/5 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/widerspruchlich-getaggte-rad-und-fusswege/98297/9.
     1`cycleway=*` together with `bicycle=use_sidepath` is only valid with `cycleway=separate` and `cycleway:both=separate`. Additionally `cycleway:right/left=*` together with `bicycle:forward/backward=use_sidepath` is only valid with `cycleway:right/left=separate`. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/widerspruchlich-getaggte-rad-und-fusswege/98297/5 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/widerspruchlich-getaggte-rad-und-fusswege/98297/9.
    22
    33There might be some more combinations with `oneway=yes`.