[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 7 22:26:10 UTC 2013

On 07.10.2013 23:06, Ole Nielsen wrote:
> 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.

Please use a different tag for this or is it the law in the Netherlands
that you are not allowed to push a bicycle on sidewalks/footpathes ?

> 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.

You can use ramp or ramp:bicycle and bicycle=yes/designated on the steps.

Also step_count (along with incline) is nice as you might even carry
your bike for some steps


More information about the Tagging mailing list