<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>21 Oct 2020, 22:00 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class="">On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by <a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><blockquote type="cite">This recent wiki change by <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Emvee" class="" title="User:Emvee">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 target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" href="https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265">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" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">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"><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><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><div>If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.</div></blockquote><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><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.<br></p></blockquote><div>Why?</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did
point out above.<br></p><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><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><div>Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.<br></div></blockquote><div>Yes. But the entire thread was started due<br></div><div>to wiki edit redefining already tagged data.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I am open to describing way splitting as<br></div><div>preferable, but not to redefining existing tagging.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><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></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. <br></p></blockquote><div>But given road may be obstacle to be crossed<br></div><div>with user desiring to get to other side</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><div>So these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing
context while routers do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on
a node.<br></div></blockquote> </body>
</html>