<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 17, 2020, 00:17 by dieterdreist@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>sent from a phone<br></div><blockquote><div>On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with bicycle=dismount?<br></div></blockquote><div>Yes, in this cases cycleway is interrupted. And yes, splitting cycleway and mapping short section<br></div><div>of crossing itself as footway is possible tagging method. Maybe superior.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no on crossing<br></div><div>nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.<br></div> </body>
</html>