<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/5/20 8:28 am, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:M87nNSi--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>May 24, 2020, 23:42 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com">voschix@gmail.com</a>:<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>
</blockquote>
bicycle=dismount I have used, despite common practice not to
dismount. Similar to maxspeed, sign posted and legal yet many go
faster. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:M87nNSi--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of
fools." </p>
<p>The law cannot recognize the wise so all are deemed fools. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>