[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.

Ole




More information about the Tagging mailing list