[Tagging] bicycle=no

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Tue Dec 22 16:28:30 GMT 2009


Stephen Hope wrote:
> 2009/12/22 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
>   
>> I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and
>> bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases.
>>
>>     
>
> Around me, that is not the case.  The law where I live is that anybody
> is allowed to cycle on any footpath, unless it is otherwise signed, or
> there is an adjacent cycle-lane or track (and even there, you only
> have to use the cycle track "if convenient" - ie, it's not blocked).
>   

Then doesn't that make it a cycleway? If you're legally allowed to take 
a bike down there then, in the eyes of OSM, it's a cycleway

> And I've only seen a very few paths that are signed no bicycles, or
> pedestrian only.
>
> So (almost) every footpath in my area allows both pedestrians and
> bicycles.  However, some of the footpaths are definitely not
> cycleways.  They are very narrow, have sharp turns or gates, steps,
> steep gutters, etc. Just because it's legal to cycle on them, doesn't
> mean they were designed for it.  

Please, don't confuse legality with ability.
Even if a way, that you're allowed to cycle down, has those obstructions 
you mention, it's still a cycleway.

You point out the obstructions by using additional tags such as width=, 
surface=, barrier=, etc...

Question to all:
Is there a tag for 'sharp bend'?
There's one for steep incline, so there should be one for going around a 
corner.

Cheers
Dave F.




> I wouldn't mark any of these ways as
> cycleway, though I might add bicycle=yes if it is possible (though not
> necessarily advisable) to take a bike through them.
>
> Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>   





More information about the Tagging mailing list