[Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 01:41 +0000, Dave F. wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Around my area in the UK a user is presently adding bicycle=no to all 
> motorways. There was a discussion a while back whether it that tag was 
> implied for motorways. If I remember, it was claimed there were some 
> places (not UK) that allowed bicycles. What was the consensus?
> 
> I'm not sure it's necessary. I think it should be implied & bicycle=yes 
> added if they are allowed.
> 

I did mail the mapper who added these and got the following reply.

"Because I want to. My edits are not vandalism, they are correct and so
why I am doing them is not really germane now is it?". His deliberate
choice of complex words that, I had to google. Had me thinking muppet.

In my mind the restriction is in the name, Motor-way, Auto-bahn,
Auto-route, Auto-Strada. I have driven on the first 3, and none allow
cyclists.

Where do we stop, if we override the implied tags do we then have to add
	pedestrian=no
	horse=no
	invalid_carriage=no
	learner_driver=no 
	hgv_learner=yes
	tracked_vehicle=no
	agricultural_vehicle=no

and so on.

I know that in the US there is debate amongst mappers, whereas in most
European countries the road number implies motorway (M in the UK and
Ireland, A in France, Germany). The access points then have the
international 'chopsticks' sign.



In countries where cyclists are allowed I do wonder if they are really
motorway, I mean legally, signposted, or if cyclists are allowed are
they expressways and then maybe tagged as trunk.  

Phil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130209/348d1d2c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 120px-Zeichen_330.svg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3580 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130209/348d1d2c/attachment-0001.png>