Abuse filter log

'{{Proposal page |name = Deprecate cycleway=opposite family |user = Supaplex030 |tagging = {{tag|cycleway|opposite}}<br>{{tag|cycleway|opposite_lane}}<br>{{tag|cycleway|opposite_share_busway}}<br>{{tag|cycleway|opposite_track}} |type = way |definition = Deprecate the {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} tagging family, as it is associated with logical problems and with {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} we have a better and meanwhile much more widespread tagging used in OSM. |status = Draft |draftStartDate = 2024-04-18 |rfcStartDate = <!-- Date the RFC email is sent to the Tagging list: YYYY-MM-DD --> |voteStartDate = <!-- Date voting will start: at least 2 weeks after RFC, YYY-MM-DD format --> |voteEndDate = <!-- Date voting will end: at least 2 weeks after start of voting, YYY-MM-DD format --> }} ==Proposal== This proposal aims to deprecate the {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} tagging family, because * this tagging family is associated with (logical) problems and * meanwhile there is the much more widespread {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} tagging allowing to map the same meaning in a better way. The following tags are considered to be deprecated as part of this tagging family: * {{tag|cycleway|opposite}}, * {{tag|cycleway|opposite_lane}}, * {{tag|cycleway|opposite_share_busway}}, * {{tag|cycleway|opposite_track}} * and all corresponding {{k|cycleway:{{tvar|side}}}} variants ({{tag|cycleway:left}}, {{tag|cycleway:right}} and {{tag|cycleway:both}}). ''Note:'' As no one can "forbid" the use of certain tags, ''deprecating'' in this sense means (see [[Deprecated features]] and [[Any tags you like]]): * to discourage the use of {{v|cycleway*{{=}}opposite*}} more clearly than before (deprecation notices, documenting as outdated), so that (wiki) documentation no longer promotes this tagging and editors can be encouraged to no longer actively support/suggest this tagging in future, * thus make visible that the majority of the community rejects its use and motivate all mappers to replace existing opposite tags with the current equivalents. The proposal is not aiming at a (semi-)automated change of existing opposite values and does not consider this procedure to be useful in this case. However, manual mapping campaigns and challenges could help to replace existing opposite tags in the future. ==Rationale== [[File:Cycleway opposite tag family chronology.png|thumb|350px|right|Chronology: Number of features tagged with one of the {{v|opposite}} family tags (including all {{v|cycleway*{{=}}opposite*}} tag combinations) and comparison with {{tag|oneway:bicycle}} tagging.]] The {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} tagging was first used in the early days of OSM to indicate one-way streets that can be legally used by bicycles in both directions. Over the last decade, it has been increasingly replaced by the more recent and more logical {{tag|oneway:bicycle}} tagging (see chronology diagram), which is now used in parallel and far more frequently on those streets. This has essentially made opposite tagging obsolete. ''»opposite values were invented in a time when using {{Key|oneway:bicycle}} and suffixes for [[Forward & backward, left & right|directions and sides]] were uncommon. But the tagging system evolved.«'' <br>— OSM Wiki: [[Key:cycleway#Problems_with_opposite*_values|Key:cycleway - Problems with opposite* values.]] Many mappers no longer use {{v|opposite}} tagging because it is associated with problems. Here is an overview of raised issues: * '''Mixing infrastructure and access/direction:''' :The intention of the {{tag|cycleway}} key is to map bicycle ''infrastructure'' (in particular ''no'' infrastructure or lanes, tracks and shared_busways if present). However, {{v|opposite}} values are mixing infrastructure and access/direction informations, as they also make a statement about the direction of travel. {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} is by far the most used tag within the {{v|opposite}} tagging family and does not even indicate any infrastructure, but only a direction of travel. The newer variant {{tag|cycleway|no}} + {{tag|oneway|yes}} + {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} is very clear about this and leaves no room for interpretation. * '''Logical problems if used with cycleway side suffixes:''' :As a result of the mentioned issue, when using side suffixes in the {{tag|cycleway}} key ({{tag|cycleway||:=left/right/both}}), there is ambiguity which sides and directions {{v|opposite}} values are actually referring to, e.g. when using {{tag|cycleway:left|opposite_lane}}. While the side suffixes solely states that there is some kind of infrastructure (or no infrastructure) on the referenced side seen in the direction of the OSM way geometry, {{v|opposite}} values are carrying a directional message related to an adjacent driving lane, although the driving direction of this lane can be different from it's geometries direction (e.g. {{tag|oneway|-1}} or even {{tag|oneway|no}}). As a result of earlier discussions, it is already [[Key:cycleway#Problems_with_opposite*_values|discouraged]] to use {{v|opposite}} values in combination with the increasingly used cycleway side suffixes in order to avoid this ambiguity. * '''Vague regarding exact infrastructural situation:''' :Thus, {{v|opposite}} tags remain rather unspecific regarding the exact infrastructural situation, in particular which sides provide which infrastructure and driving directions. * '''Redundancy with {{tag|cycleway||no/lane/share_busway/track}} + {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}}:''' :The mentioned issues can easily be avoided by simply using regular {{tag|cycleway}} tags ({{v|no}}, {{v|lane}}, {{v|track}} or {{v|share_busway}}) in combination with {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} instead of {{v|opposite}} tags. This approach is now much more widespread, making the {{v|opposite}} values redundant and basically unnecessary. * '''{{v|cycleway{{=}}opposite}} associates infrastructure where there is none:''' :{{tag|cycleway|opposite}} can be misinterpreted because there is no infrastructure, but a value other than {{v|no}} suggest an existing infrastructure at first glance. It is atypical not to use a {{v|no}} value although in fact it is meant. * '''Exclusion of other transport modes:''' :{{v|opposite}} tags are intended for statements about bicycles, but not for other modes of transport. However, a one-way street can also be open for other types of traffic in the opposite direction, e.g. mofas or mopeds. The {{v|opposite}} tags do not allow this {{tag|access}} differentiation, whereas it can be easily tagged with the access variants of oneway (e.g. {{tag|oneway:mofa}}, {{tag|oneway:moped}}). :{| |+ |- | {{taginfo2|oneway:mofa|no|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|oneway:moped|no|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} |} All in all, {{v|opposite}} tagging offers no advantages over the contemporary alternative, but does have a few disadvantages. If the more widespread tagging combination of common {{tag|cycleway}} values and {{tag|oneway}} tags is used instead, the result is logical tagging, which avoids misinterpretation. The replacement of the {{v|opposite}} tagging family would mean a simplification for everyone, mappers, editors and data users. At local level, this tagging has already been deprecated; for example it has already been completely replaced by the Dutch community. Since the alternative {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} tagging has already been widely used for several years and is taken into account by virtually all evaluators/renderers/etc., the overall implications of this deprecation for data users are probably marginal. (Note: As long as opposite tags are significantly present in the OSM database, editors and data users should continue to take care to evaluate these tags correctly). ==Tagging and Examples== Each {{v|opposite*}} value can be replaced in any situation by a corresponding tagging with the same meaning using a common {{v|oneway}} + {{v|cycleway}} combination. The following table gives examples for some cases. '''Note:''' Since the simple {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} is by far the most frequently used of all opposite tags (see [[Proposal:Deprecate_cycleway%3Dopposite_family#Current usage in the OSM database|below]]), in most cases it is sufficient to simply replace {{tag|cycleway|opposite}} with {{tag|cycleway:both|no}} and to make sure that {{tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} is tagged on the street. {| class="wikitable" ! Picture ! Illustration ! {{v|opposite}} tagging to be deprecated ! Current {{v|oneway}} + {{v|cycleway}} tagging |- | [[File:Baustelle in Schulstrasse mit Freigabe einer Einbahnstrasse für den Radverkehr in Marburg 2017-04-02.jpg|250px]] | [[File:Oneway cycle opposite nolane left.svg|100px|center]] | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> (''optional:'' {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}}) <hr> {{Tag|cycleway|opposite}} | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} <hr> {{Tag|cycleway:both|no}} |- | [[File:Cycle contraflow Caen c.jpg|250px]] | [[File:Oneway cycle opposite lane left.svg|100px|center]] | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> (''optional:'' {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}}) <hr> {{Tag|cycleway|opposite_lane}} | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} <hr> {{Tag|cycleway:right|no}}<br /> {{Tag|cycleway:left|lane}}<br /> {{Tag|cycleway:left:oneway||-1}} ^[1] |- | [[File:2010-01-02 15.19.16.jpg|250px]] | [[File:Oneway opposite shared bus left.png|100px|center]] | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> {{Tag|oneway:bus|no}}<br /> (''optional:'' {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}}) <hr> {{Tag|cycleway|opposite_share_busway}} | {{Tag|oneway|yes}}<br /> {{Tag|oneway:bus|no}}<br /> {{Tag|oneway:bicycle|no}} <hr> {{Tag|cycleway:right|no}}<br /> {{Tag|cycleway:left|share_busway}}<br /> {{Tag|cycleway:left:oneway||-1}} ^[1] |} ^[1] '''{{tag|cycleway:left:oneway|-1}}''' means that the cycleway on the left-hand side of the road (seen in the direction of the OSM line geometry) is used in the opposite direction to the direction of the line. In countries with right-hand traffic, this is the default assumption, so usually it's not explicitly tagged. [[Key:cycleway:right:oneway#Implicit_values|According to the current documentation in the wiki]], however, this implicit assumption should only be made for streets without oneway traffic. For oneway streets, in contrast, the default assumption is that cycleways run in the same direction as the line on both sides. A cycleway that leads against the oneway street should therefore be explicitly tagged with <code>cycleway:<side>:oneway=-1</code> in order to ensure a clear interpretation of the data. ==Current usage in the OSM database== ''(See also the [[Proposal:Deprecate_cycleway%3Dopposite_family#Rationale|chronology diagram above]].)'' {| |+ |- | {{taginfo2|cycleway|opposite|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:left|opposite|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:right|opposite|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:both|opposite|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} |- | {{taginfo2|cycleway|opposite_lane|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:left|opposite_lane|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:right|opposite_lane|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:both|opposite_lane|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} |- | {{taginfo2|cycleway|opposite_share_busway|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:left|opposite_share_busway|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:right|opposite_share_busway|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:both|opposite_share_busway|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} |- | {{taginfo2|cycleway|opposite_track|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:left|opposite_track|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:right|opposite_track|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} || {{taginfo2|cycleway:both|opposite_track|countAll=no|countNodes=no|countWays=yes|countRelations=no}} |} ==Features/Pages affected== * Rework the {{tag|cycleway}} page and the individual pages of the {{v|opposite}} tags to flag {{v|opposite}} tags as deprecated and recommend to not use them anymore. * Rework all other pages on which cycleway tags are documented and on which opposite tags are mentioned (e.g. [[Bicycle]]) to only refer to the newer tagging variants without promoting {{v|opposite}} tags. ==External discussions== * On the wiki talk pages [[Talk:Tag:cycleway=opposite]] and [[Talk:Key:oneway:bicycle]], some discussions on the understanding of opposite tags and their relationship to oneway:bicycle=no have arisen in recent years. * [[Talk:Key:cycleway:left#Why_opposite_lane_is_supposed_to_be_invalid_value?|Discussion on problems with <code>cycleway:left=opposite_lane</code>]]. * [https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cycleway-opposite/86309 Discussion in the Netherlands forum] which has led to a nationwide replacement of opposite tags and a de facto local deprecation in the Netherlands. * The topic has also been mentioned again and again [https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=cycleway%3Dopposite in other threads in the community forum], and it is clear that opposite tags lead to confusion or are simply regarded as a historical relic by most mappers. ==Comments== Please comment on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|discussion page]].'