[Tagging] bicycle=no

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Dec 22 20:12:31 GMT 2009

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > Depends on the country.
> >>
> >> I'm gonna have to disagree... if it allows both pedestrians and
> >> bicycles, that would be a cycleway in most cases.
> >>
> >>
> > Disagree all you like.
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
> This isn't even accurate, it shows foot=no, bicycle=no for motorways in
> the US, but this is wrong.  The default, unless otherwise posted, for
> all ways in the US, is =yes.  That's the MUTCD saying that, not just my
> observation.

"Motorway" is not a term defined in the MUTCD, the MUTCD just plain doesn't
say that, and that completely contradicts state law in many parts of the
United States.

Of course, requiring tagging rules to be consistent across the entire United
States makes about as much sense as requiring them to be consistent across
all of Europe.  There are many consistent rules, but within each state there
are many state-specific ones.  In some states, bicycles are banned from
interstates.  In other states, they aren't.  (*)  In the latter states, I'd
question the use of the tag "motorway", as the very word "motorway" implies
a way dedicated to "motor vehicles".

(*) "Each State establishes the operating rules that determine which
vehicles are allowed on the Interstate highways under their jurisdiction.
Most States do not allow bicyclists on the Interstate shoulders, but bicycle
use is permitted in some States, particularly in the west where there is
less traffic and where good alternative routes may not exist for bicycles."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091222/89e19783/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list