<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>Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite">This
recent wiki change by <a title="User:Emvee" class="" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Emvee" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Emvee</a> is in my view not helpful, or
even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging
practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's
established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)<br></blockquote><p>The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a
node, see <a href="https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265</a><br></p></blockquote><div>No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in<br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported and having a better alternative.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no
in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.<br></p></blockquote><div>Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make it useless.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from this discussion meaning<br></div><div>of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it
does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue
can be deduced from the connecting ways.<br></p></blockquote><div>Not in cases where <br></div><div>(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount<br></div><div>(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where cyclists<br></div><div>are obligated to dismount<br></div><div>(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both sides <br></div><div>(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both) <br></div><div>(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately mapped <br></div><div>cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but<br></div><div>cyclists must dismount)<br></div> </body>
</html>