[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

It's cycleway all the way down, under the bridge, and up the other side.
We don't get to decide whether it's a cycleway or not. That's what the 
signs are for.
If it had changed into a footpath, there would be a sign (the Dutch are 
good at that).

I agree that if there was a pedestrian sign, it would be enough to mark 
it as a footway (implies 'dismount and push').

I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed 
(they just have to be pushed).

Can anyone please explain what the problem is with keeping the tag 
bicycle=dismount?
(And yes, I do understand that many cyclists, me included, don't like it 
and often ignore it.)

But it not just a "made up" sign. It's there in real life. And we map 
what is there.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan" <bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com>
To: <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


> I'm not suggesting the dismount sign is ignored on the map, I'm 
> saying, if cycling is not allowed (i.e. cyclist should dismount and no 
> longer cycle) then it should either not be marked as a cycleway or the 
> access tag should be used to restrict cycles on the way.
>