<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>19 paź 2020, 22:43 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><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><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><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>We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped
with tags at the highway=<street> with no seperately mapped
ways.<br></div><div> Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing
way.<br></div><div> Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now? <br></div></blockquote><p>Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to
retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for
routing while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing
nodes _without_ a crossing way routers will not <span class="">treat</span> them different if there is
bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How specific data consumers process<br></div><div>OSM data does not really change <br></div><div>meaning of OSM data.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Especially if it is "that part is currently<br></div><div>not supported"</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way
will have the correct access rights.<br></p></blockquote><div>And if mapper wants to map it right now<br></div><div>this tagging is method to do that.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Note that in some regions people <br></div><div>decided to map sidewalks with <br></div><div>sidewalk tag not with separate ways</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere
proposed, a new tag should be used instead.<br></p></blockquote><div>I also see no need for a new tag :)</div> </body>
</html>