<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 24, 2020, 23:42 by voschix@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically applicable here. <br></div><div><div><div class="">My questions are: <br></div><div class="">Is Italy the only country with this problem? <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where they were fining people -<br></div><div>in sudden campaigns with several traps appearing for several hours every few months.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Favorite traps included cycleways crossing roads, where cyclists were obligated by law to dismount<br></div><div>due to missing cyclist crossings.<br></div><div>Some routes had such crossing every 200 - 250m, nobody was following that law.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I was tagging legal status, and had some discussions with other mappers<br></div><div>whatever it is desirable to do it this way.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Currently most of missing cyclist crossings are added[1], signs (for example in forests)<br></div><div>more commonly explicitly allow bicycles, oneway:bicycle=no is becoming more common <br></div><div>at least in some cities...<br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] It turned out that blocker was completely idiotic law requiring pedestrian + cyclist crossings <br></div><div>to be at least 7 m wide, for smaller ones including cyclist crossing was against rules.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div class="">Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see on the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Not sure what I would do in cases where access law as written and access law as executed<br></div><div>would completely diverge.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Setup new tags specially to allow to tag both verifiable legal status and verifiable <br></div><div>de facto status?<br></div><div><br></div><div>bicycle=no<br></div><div>bicycle:de_facto=permissive<br></div><div><br></div><div>(even bicycle=permissive, bicycle:ignored_law=no would be an improvement over<br></div><div>current state of not tagging legal status)<br></div><div><br></div><div>It is out of OSM scope but I also had some successes with requests to add missing<br></div><div>"except bicycles" under various traffic signs (on average in last years - about one added every month),<br></div><div>in some cases it was simpler than inventing fitting tagging scheme for really absurd cases.<br></div> </body>
</html>