Talk:Proposed featues/Obligatory vs. optional cycletrack

Proposed tagging

The cycleway=* is already used for other purposes. It is used to indicate lanes cycleway=lane cycleway=opposite_lane or crossings cycleway=crossing. You should use be something like cycleway:status=* for optional and obligatory values. Rafmar (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think, a cycleway can have several properties. There are couples or triples for each dimension, but we need not necessarily write each dimension.

On a separately drawn cycleway, it is almost clear that it is a cycletrack. In the few cases where a cycle lane is drawn separately (for instance as a short section between two drawn cycletracks), it ought to be tagged as a strict lane or a soft lane, dependant to its status.

On roadline-tagged cycletrack I still hope that some day renderers and routers will understand combined tags.

I did not reflect this tag isolated, but in combinations with other properties, see User:Ulamm/Tables of street layouts.--Ulamm (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict with already existing tags

The tags you proposed stand in conflict with already existing values of cycleway=*. It is not possible to tag a optional cycleway lane. Up to now it has been tagged with highway=primary/secondary/... + cycleway=lane. But your proposal overwrites cycleway=lane. It is also not possible to tag a optional/compulsive cycleway track which is not mapped seperately (e.g. because it is only devided by a low curb). Up to now it has been tagged with highway=primary/secondary/... + cycleway=track. But your proposal overwrites cycleway=track.

Please use either traditional access tagging (cycleway=*) with maybe new values or invent a supplementary tag cycleway:use_obligation=yes/no. --Nakaner (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)