[Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Sat Dec 14 20:41:24 UTC 2013


Am 14.12.2013 15:18, schrieb Masi Master:
> Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
> PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
> http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl
> 
> 
> 
> Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com>:
> 
>> I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
>> to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
>> again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
>> tagging is.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> @ Martin
>>>
>>> I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not
>>> expect we
>>> had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
>>> some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST
>>> way
>>> has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing
>>> is a
>>> difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be
>>> mapped as
>>> a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better
>>> routing
>>> is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  "bicycle
>>> access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is
>>> easier to
>>> explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with
>>> explicit
>>> ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that.... it
>>> still is
>>> difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
>>> try.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> PeeWee32
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/12/13 Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
>>>>>
>>>>> No:  11
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstain:  3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
>>>>> the current one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
>>>> majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be
>>>> tagged,
>>>> either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible
>>>> btw., if
>>>> there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
>>>> existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
>>>> destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
>>>> discussed).
>>>>
>>>> As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very
>>>> likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
>>>> solution will be agreed on).
>>>>

As I am not voting anymore (I did on few occasions in the past), I am
sorry for you guys.

There are still many options left.

1. No one can stop you from using the value anyway.
2. create a similar proposal and just leave it as proposal without
voting but have some software adapted to show the results.

I am really in favour of a tag like this as the current situation is not
working and people start to use bad concepts to make it work (Lübeck).

Cheers fly



More information about the Tagging mailing list