[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
osm at bavarianmallet.de
Thu Nov 14 10:59:46 UTC 2013
Am 14.11.2013 11:04, schrieb Andre Engels:
> 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?
The difference is the "road:you may cycle"!
A bicycle=no shall be definite, unambiguous.
A router which routes a bicycle-trike (that is allowed to ride on the
road but not on the compulsory cycleway) shall still obey a bicycle=no
as a definite bicycle=no!
A router shall route a 'normal' bike (that shall normally use the
compulsory cycleway) on the cycleway.
But yet there is no relation between a road and the cycleway so a router
can not decide to avoid this road (e.g. with compulsory cycleway), but
not that road (e.g. without _compulsory_ cycleway).
So a router needs a hint for such restricted roads.
That's the core problem.
The naming of the hint is free - as long as it will not be a bicycle=no!
There is no clear 'yes' or 'no', there is something else.
I won't call it "use_cycleway", but name it what it is: A 'restriction'.
More information about the Tagging