[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Ole Nielsen on-osm at xs4all.nl
Mon Oct 7 21:06:02 UTC 2013

On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> dieterdreist wrote:
>> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
>> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not
>> riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.
> That may not be the case in the UK.
> The law allows walkers and their "usual accompaniments" along public
> footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a "usual
> accompaniment", so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is
> unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it
> is, many local councils disagree.
> That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as
> bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where
> cycling is tolerated.

At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no 
and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with 
no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. 
Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.

In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already 
mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side 
intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps 
as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact.


More information about the Tagging mailing list