[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Jonathan bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 17:55:31 UTC 2013

I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.

However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't even 
be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag needs to 
be extended to include a "no pushed bicycles" option.  In those 
circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage trolley but 
not push a bike?



On 10/10/2013 18:30, Frank Little wrote:
> It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different 
> situations are involved.
> 1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to 
> dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike.
> To tag these situations the current solution is to tag 
> "bicycle=dismount".
> The original question was: "is it an 'official' sign?" The answer 
> seems to be, yes, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK).
> We also have a similar sign in the Netherlands (although the legal 
> status is not entirely clear).
> Where there is a sign (and only in those situations), it makes sense 
> to tag it accordingly. So there is no reason to "deprecate" the tag.
> Possibly other tagging solutions need to be found where there is no 
> explicit signage but there are general rules (e.g. in Italy).
> 2. A different situation is where a cyclist is explicitly forbidden to 
> push the bike (e.g. through a pedestrian area) after dismounting.
> The assumption is that a cyclist pushing a bike is to be treated as a 
> pedestrian, and may normally use a sidewalk, pedestrian zone, etc.
> Where that is not allowed, we need a different tag.
> I don't like bicycle:dismount=no since it suggests to me that you do 
> not have to dismount.
> (On pragmatic grounds, I wouldn't tag this anyway because I don't 
> expect routers to use highway=footway or area=pedestrian for bicycle 
> routing.)
>> On 10.10.2013 16:28, fly wrote
>> +1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount
>> On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote:
>>> Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that
>>> would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.
>> The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common than
>> "_" but at the end it does not really matter.
>>> "Janko Mihelić" <janjko at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>     I think dismount should be a key, not a value - 
>>> bicycle_dismount=yes/no.
>>>     On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.
>>>     On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
>>>     bicycle_dismount=no
>>>     When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.
>>>     Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.
>> +1
>> cu fly
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list