try to make description less misleading for cycleway contraflow traffic

[matkoniecz]

1. cycleway=opposite may be used also where there is no dedicated separate bicycle lane (but contraflow traffic is still allowed)

2. cycleway=opposite_lane is nowadays treated as inferior to tagging oneway:bicycle=no + (for example) cycleway:left=lane so it should not be phrased in way suggesting it to be preferable for cases where dedicated contraflow lane exists

Opening in draft as I would really want native English speaker to look at it (@1ec5 @ZeLonewolf ?)

[github-actions]

🍱 You can preview the tagging presets of this pull request here.

[ZeLonewolf]

In US English "contraflow" is normally used when automobile traffic is routed on a stretch of road that normally goes in a different direction. In some cities, there are "contraflow lanes" that are opened at high-traffic times - for example, an expressway with 4 lanes on each side, might have 5 lanes inbound in the morning and 3 outbound -- the one lane that got shifted would be the contraflow lane.

[ZeLonewolf]

In this context, I would find "two-way traffic" to be a more understandable way to say "bicycles can travel in both directions".

[ZeLonewolf]

It does seem that "contra-flow" in the way it's used here is valid and accurate terminology though, based on what I'm finding online:

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/contra-flow-bike-lanes/

[matkoniecz]

Yep, "contraflow" should be fine. I was worried mostly about Traffic part in "Contraflow Bike Traffic"

[ZeLonewolf]

"Cyclists may travel in both directions on a one-way street" makes sense then. In fact, the old description is wrong because it implies that cyclists can only ride towards car traffic.