Thanks for having a look and correcting this.

Martin.

Hi Sandervalya,

Can you help me with the tags on RN46?

You added in this changeset some ways, for example https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/556485606 with the tags:
* bicycle=no
* cycleway:left=opposite
* cycleway:right=shared_lane

That combination does not make sense, the first indicate cycling is not allowed while the last two hint cycling is allowed.

Any idea what is the actual situation? Are you allowed to cycle on the RN 46?

See also http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pa8

Thanks,

Martin.

Hi Tom,

After this update, way/757359639 has a strange combination of tags:

* access=no
* bicycle=no
* cycleway:left=lane

The surrounding ways have "bicycle=yes" and no "access=no", so is this a error?

Thanks,

Martin.

See also http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?source=4336&item=3032&class=30329

In this changeset you did add to the first two ways the tags:
* bicycle=no
* cycleway:left=opposite
* cycleway:right=shared_lane

That combination does not make sense, the first indicate cycling is not allowed while the last two hint cycling is allowed.

Any idea what is the actual situation?

Thanks,

Martin.

With this change the Wartstrasse has "bicycle=no" and "cycleway=opposite_lane", that is not logical I think.

See http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?source=1023&item=3032&class=30329

Greetings,

Martin.

Even heel Rotterdam-Zuid nagekeken maar zag gelukkig dat dit de enige was wat dit betreft was.

Merci bien.

Goed dat dit stukje fietspad onderdeel van een fietsroute is ;-)

Martin.

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for coming back on this, yes, I think it would be good to remove bicycle=no. Changing it into bicycle=yes is not really necessary as the default access restrictions for Australia, osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia indicate that for these roads bicycles are by default allowed.

Cheers,

Martin.

Makes sense, I did restore cycleway=lane

changeset/78423593

Yes, right, missed that.

Is your opinion that in this case cycleway=lane should remain?

The problem with "cycleway=shoulder" in this case is that the ways are marked as "bicycle=no".

Looking better at the surrounding ways of way/171583679, the situation is inconsistent. One side you are allowed to cycle the other side not.

More problems in the same area ;-)

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#source=16390&item=3032&class=30329&zoom=15&lat=-28.09387&lon=153.43447&level=2&tags=&fixable=

Hi Fizzie,

In this changeset you added bicycle=no to some ways that have cycleway:left = lane and that does not really make sense.

You seem to be known in Sidney so can you have a look at these problems reported by Osmose and try to fix them?

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#source=16390&item=3032&class=30329&zoom=18&lat=-28.086057&lon=153.426349&level=2&tags=&fixable=

Thanks,

Martin.

Do you have any problem if I change these objects, that is, remove bicycle=use_sidepath?

For ways tagged as "highway=motorway" I will then and add bicycle=yes + class:bicycle=-2

Mooi, bedankt voor het bijwerken!

Bij junction=circular moet er dan wel weer oneway=yes bij ;-)

Misschien is voor Nederland een goede regel, als er een boord (J9) staat dan is het een rotonde, anders junction=circular?

Misschien iets voor het forum?

De wiki heeft het nogal expliciet over voorrang hebben of niet, wat hier eigenlijk niet van toepassing is door de stoplichten.

Niet direct duidelijk voor mij wat hier meer op zijn plaats is.

Maar ... junction=roundabout betekend automatisch "oneway=yes"

Zie junction=roundabout :

"oneway=yes is implied and redundant."

Groeten,

Martin.