Forcing specific routing
"By adding oneway:bicycle=yes you can "force" a cyclist taking the cyclepath" - is this road actually oneway for cyclists? It sounds to me like it is tagging for router to force specific routing Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, there are no signs indicating oneway, see Mapillary. I see that not as a big problem although I think doing it with bicycle:backward=* is also a good option. ---- Emvee (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway:bicycle=yes
What is better?
- highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway:bicycle=yes
- highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes + oneway:foot=no + oneway:bicycle=yes
My take is that simple is better but this revert says
yes, ways are bidirectiuonal by default but this explicit tagging may be used to (1) tag oneway (that is at least sometimes described as applying only to vehicles), so that oneway status will be easier to use for data consumers (not an incorrect tagging!), and explicitly tag as two-way for pedestrian)
I am far from sure this is easier for data consumers unless there is some proof and I better like to follow current practice. To that extend I did retrieve 1037 ways in Germany mapped with highway=footway + oneway:bicycle=yes and I see:
|highway=footway + oneway:bicycle=yes||1037||100%|
So really nobody is using "oneway=yes + oneway:foot=no + oneway:bicycle=yes".
My take is that you need strong reasons, not some assumption on data consumers, not to follow what is the current pratice.
Photo of actually useful usage
There are many cases of quite dubious usefulness of highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway:bicycle=yes (and variants with cycleway, path and designated as status for foot/bicycle). But is there case of actual useful use?
Can someone maybe take a photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
Maybe https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12pK will be useful