Suggestion for ways where bicycles are allowed

[jajajaneeneenee]

I would propose to add the key "oneway:bicycle" (with values yes/no) to some ways where bicycles are allowed or could be allowed, especially these ones:

• "Dedicated Cycleway"
• "Segregated Foot- and Cycleway"
• "Combined Foot- and Cycleway"
• "Dedicated Footway"

It can be important to set it to "no" (if it is allowed to use it by bicycle in both ways), because many if these ways which follow streets are normally only allowed for oneway use by bicycle (mostly in the direction of a road or the lane of a road when it's a side track of the road). Or sometimes it can also be important to set it to "yes", if it's not directly obvious/normal, but a sign says that it may only be used in ONE way.

In both cases, it could be important for bicycle routing for example (I think).

E.g. when there is such a sign:

Or something like that:

[jajajaneeneenee]

Sorry, there are 2 issues now, #217 and #218. I got a error message after posting the first one (404?). And did it again ...

[simonpoole]

The "oneway" tag is already available in these presets as bicycles are the only vehicles that could be affected by it on the ways in question I don't think that there is a consensus that namespacing is required here.

[jajajaneeneenee]

OK ... I was also thinking about that after posting the issue ... Although it feels quite unusual for me to set oneway=no if it's only meant for bicycles. "oneway:bicycle=no" is quite familiar, because it's used on normal streets quite often – at least here in Germany (perhaps also very familiar for data consumers like routing software?) ... and it's the precise equivalence of the traffic_sign (= better for human readability = mappers and not worse for data consumer software).

I can't remember to have seen "oneway=no" on a dedicated cycleway (or a dedicated footway with bicycle=yes like my 2nd example), but it's logical that it should be no problem. And I didn't check now if it's a common usage in these cases. For me it also looks a little like a mapper wanted to map oneway=no for pedestrians (normally unnecessary if no bicycles are involved), e.g. on a dedicated footway with bicycle=yes it could be confusing for other mappers, and oneway:bicycle=no makes the intention very clear ... (It's only my personal feeling ...). But OK, if you think, we should use only "oneway" ... let's do it like that. It follows the "rule" to keep things simple (not sure if it's really simpler or better or only shorter in this case).

But then, the minimum what should be possible is to set oneway=no with these preset items in an easy way. And:

1. I can't find the oneway key at the "Dedicated Footway" item. There, the reference is <reference ref="highway_additional"/> – without oneway. And no other line with the oneway key. But it is needed here also (see my second example) ...
2. At the other 3 types of ways, the reference is <reference ref="highway_additional_oneway_lit_width"/>, but with this reference, you cannot set the checkbox for "oneway" to "no" (off) – you can only enter the value in the detail tab – because it has "disable_off="true" in:

 <chunk id="highway_additional_oneway">
        <check key="oneway" text="Oneway" disable_off="true"/>