<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJkJRym--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>:<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
<p>Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is
problematic namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not
add that context but that is something I can do. <br>
</p>
<p>Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate
osm way with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a
good idea.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJkJRym--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJkJRym--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<p> I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on
the Talk page I have no problem with reverting for now but think
it should be reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was
added.</p>
<p>Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did
point out above.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJkJRym--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJkJRym--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div> </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>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for
routing purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way
the road. So these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing
context while routers do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on
a node.</p>
</body>
</html>