[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Andre Engels andreengels at gmail.com
Thu Nov 14 10:04:52 UTC 2013


And why not? What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle,
cyclepath: you may cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath,
cyclepath: you may cycle"? And if it's such an important difference, why
only use this for cyclists? Why not put a "motor_vehicle:use_carriageway"
on the cyclepath?


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" <
> robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com>:
> >
> > I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about
> > with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the
> > cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag
> > along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the
> > fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's
> > parallel cycleway rules.
>
>
> You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal
> exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain
> circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be
> tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway)
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131114/64dd6e3a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list