Talk:Key:cycleway:both

Why is both needed ?

As cycleway=* already stands for both side of the road, why is the postfix :both needed?. Does it not just make the tags longer and therefore more complex? --Skyper (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It turns that in many cases cycleway=* is not actually used in meaning "for both sides of the road". For example cycleway=opposite_lane, cycleway=track where track is only on one side and so on. :both removes this ambiguity. And for example cycleway=lane + oneway=yes is by some used where there is one only in one direction, by some for cycle lanes in both directions, and so on. Or case where there is busway in one direction and cycleway=share_busway was used. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, could that be written on the pages, please.
So, following your words, cycleway:both:lane/track=* is only needed in combination with oneway=*. Why is cycleway:left:opposite_lane/opposite_track=* not used? You example about cycleway=share_busway does not fit as you need two different values which leads to :left/right --Skyper (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"Thanks, could that be written on the pages, please" - I will try, added it to my OSM entertainment TODO list

"cycleway:both:lane/track=* is only needed in combination with oneway=*" - cycleway=track is sometimes used to mean that there is separate cycleway on one side of two way road and sometimes to indicate that there is cycleway on both sides on a road.

"Why is cycleway:left:opposite_lane/opposite_track=* not used?" - for multiple reasons, depending on mapper.

"cycleway=share_busway does not fit as you need two different values" - yes, but some people tag "share busway in one direction", "share busway in direction of OSM way" and "share busway in direction opposite to direction of OSM way" as cycleway=share_buswayMateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I remember that cycleway=* was treated as only on the right hand side together with oneway=yes and I understand that :left/right is needed. Though, I do not understand why you do not trust the established cycleway=* in cases of both directions but introduce a system which does neither deprecate nor completely extend the tag but can contradict in some situations? How am I suppose to tag your example with the share_busway on one side and track or lane on the other? I would have used no cycleway=* and cycleway:right=lane/track together with cycleway:left=share_busway. Note that the suffixes :left/right are general suffixes and this means cycleway:left/right=* is defined with all values of cycleway=*. --Skyper (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"I remember that cycleway=* was treated as only on the right hand side together with oneway=yes" - well, it is not how it is used in practice. It is also not how it is interpreted in practice. Note that such way of defining it would break UK and other places driving on opposite road side for start anyway.

"Though, I do not understand why you (...) introduce a system which" - I have not introduced a system here

"Though, I do not understand why you do not trust the established cycleway=*" - I just explained problems with it

"how am I suppose to tag your example with the share_busway on one side and track or lane on the other?" - cycleway:left=share_busway + cycleway:right=lane Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Sorry, I do not know, why I thought, that all this is your product and I apologize that my words were written in a bad mood. Please, forgive me. I know, you are doing an unpopular job in documenting former undocumented tags, nicely. Thanks for that. --Skyper (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

So, share_busway is allowed but missing on the pages about cycleway:left=* and cycleway:right=*. We need to add it. --Skyper (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Implication

Does it really imply bicycle=designated? I feel it is strange at least for the case of cycleway:both=separate.--Mzaki (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point, removed. cycleway:both=no is an even better example Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts to the extended use of cycleway:both=* – specially cycleway:both=no seems to be an overload for me

Mateusz Konieczny: In the discussion above you wrote: "I have not introduced a system here". But in deed you did OR at least you documented it here (what's a kind of introduction) by removing the redirect to cycleway=* in 12/2017. This has split a road in two parts (now there are 2 ways you can take to reach a destination, where it was one way before). This is at least an extension to the former system or a variant of the former system (without any discussion – as far as I noticed) – because before, it shouldn't be necessary to use it (except for other subkeys). And it was quite well defined before (and still is), also the exceptions where cycleway=* only meant a cycleway on ONE side – for me it was always clear or could be made clear with the suffixes :left and :right. But perhaps it may help others to avoid tagging errors and make thing clearer for some mappers who used cycleway=* in a wrong way. But generally: to introduce new tags and justify it with very clear tagging errors (like your example: "cycleway=track where track is only on one side and so on") is a bad idea, I think ... These cases should simply be corrected. And it would be better to reduce the argumentation to real questionable cases where the old tags really had flaws or cases weren't covered (e.g. cycleway=opposite_lane?). It would make things clearer why and when the :both suffix should be used now, and when it has a clear advantage.

I don't know exactly if it had a high usage before you introduced here in the wiki (or whether you've just documented widespread usage – taginfo shows it begins 2018 – after your change here with a strange sudden increase 2021). But to add it without any discussion here in the wiki is also not the best idea, I think. (Or did any discussion took place? – Then it would ne nice if you could mention it, at least in a footnote.) I see some less nice side effects from this, for example: what about the fact, that we now have a lot of tags with the same meaning like:

• cycleway=track = cycleway:both=track
• cycleway=lane = cycleway:both=lane

And so on ...

This can also lead to confusion for mappers, because normally there is a real difference if a different kind of tagging – here: a tag without/with a suffix – is used (for me it's clearly another tagging system ...). This can cause questions like "Is one of the two variants wrong here?", "Is one of the two variants better than the other?", "Does it really has the same meaning or is there a (hidden?) difference?" and so on. And I already saw a lot of places with a mixture of both "systems", e.g. cycleway=lane and cycleway:both:lane=exclusive or the other way around ... Although this is not a wrong combination, it shows me that for many mappers it is also confusing NOW. And it looks confusing, too if you have to edit a way ... Or tags were changed, because there is a difference of the :left and :right side (not taken into account before), but the tag with :both was not removed or changed ... and so on ... Maybe because of a lack of editor support? I don't know.

Another side effect: now we have double wiki pages for the same thing (see the links of the cycleway lanes variants above) ... It now seems to be a bit of a mess, and not a very big step forward (in terms of clarity). I don't want to think of beginners trying to look through here ... To improve this, it should be better integrated on the main page of cycleway=* for example.

Generally it has a great potention of redundancy, with all of its problems and side effects.

Maybe this will get better in the future and both "systems" can happily coexist ... or one system will prevail ... I hope so. But what is really an overload and confusing (IMO) is the tag cycleway:both=no. What can be more explict and clear (and simpler) than cycleway=no for a road which has no bicycle infrastructure? What does this :both want tell me here? If you have no arms, you will normally say: "I have no arms". And not: "I have no arm on both sides." Perhaps you will say "I don't have an arm on either side", if you really want to emphasize it. But do we really need tags only for emphasis of facts – for the cost of redundancy and perhaps confusion? I specially see it now very often from people using Street Complete ... (Perhaps there is some connection with you? I don't know exactly.) Other editors may show this tag/suffix combination (and others with cycleway:both=*) as an unknown tag (as long as it's not build into presets for example), which can also cause confusion – and quickly looks like a wrong tag! Or should there be TWO different tags in a preset for the SAME thing (to cover the 2 different usages/systems)? – That probably won't happen, and it would be confusing, too. How should this be solved to cover both schemes/systems?

I only wanted to express that I see many questions and doubts here ... And perhaps more time should be taken for some things ... --Goodidea (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"In the discussion above you wrote: "I have not introduced a system here". But in deed you did OR at least you documented it here (what's a kind of introduction)" - I meant that I documented tagging scheme in use rather than invented it. Also, it is likely (not checked that now) that it was already described at target page of a redirect and just made documentation easier to find. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"This can also lead to confusion for mappers" - documenting it was trying to avoid it or at least reduce the problem Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"To improve this, it should be better integrated on the main page of cycleway=* for example." - when beginner encounters specific tag or wants to learn more about it - then it is beneficial to be able to read page specifically about rather supermassive page mentioning it in passing. My plan in general is to have dedicated page for every single key and value in real use (with exception of variants such as name=Main Street) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"I specially see it now very often from people using Street Complete ... (Perhaps there is some connection with you?" - yes, I am one of StreetComplete authors (though I have neither introduced or suggested using cycleway:both) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"taginfo shows it begins 2018 – after your change here with a strange sudden increase 2021)." - I added tag history section documenting reason for this inflection points. In short, that is caused by StreetComplete changes rather by my edits here (though my edits were triggered by StreetComplete - I in general document tags that I use in mapping or in data processing or are used by software that I interact with) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, most :both are complete overload. For cycleways the source is SC but we have similar tagging with parking:lane=*. --Skyper (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)