[Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Dec 17 14:45:48 GMT 2009

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are
> > posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes.  Really, what's wrong with the
> > "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without
> > trying to supersede common sense (ie, identifying and obeying traffic
> > control devices as they're encountered)?
> Because I find bicycle=destination meaningless
> I might comprehend bicycle=journey in a literature exam or reading poetry
> but bicycle=destination I can't get my head around
Agreed, it's a bad name for a tag. I can't really see a difference between
"bicycle=no" and "bicycle=dismount" to be honest, although it seems to me a
naive router would distinguish them.

The more I think about the whole bicycle/footpath thing, at least in the
Australian context, the more I conclude:
1) There are very *paths where bikes are really forbidden, and extremely few
*paths where walking is forbidden.
2) What cyclists who use maps really want to know is "how good is this path
for riding" and "can I follow this *path somewhere useful?" - is it signed
for example
3) What pedestrians who use maps really want to know is "are there any major
physical obstructions between me and my destination" and "can I follow this
*path somewhere useful?"
4) Structuring everything in terms of legalities, which few people are
actually aware of, doesn't make much sense in the Australian context.

In terms of 2), there are maybe four categories:
1) High quality bike paths: wide, smooth asphalt, gentle corners, no kerbs.
2) Lower quality paths: concrete, or narrow, or with bumps and kerbs and
3) Unsealed paths.
4) Paths that bikes are banned from.

And of course there are signed routes, which can include on-road sections.
They're nice to know about.

That's all you care about. Maybe it's nice to tag every detail like the
precise width of the road. But if you just had the information I described,
you'd be a happy cyclist. The reason cyclists are not happy atm is that
generally category 1 is tagged "cycleway" and categories 2-4 are tagged
"footway" - or at least render that way. Whereas if you had to split them
between two categories, you'd group 1-3 as cycleway, and 4 as footway.

That's my analysis for the night.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091218/4de8b6b9/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list