[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Jonathan bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 11 09:49:35 UTC 2013

We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept 
of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad 
that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with 
your bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow 
bicycles to even be present on some ways.

So, we need to adjust the values in the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect this.

Looking at 
there are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we 
address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are 
being ridden or not.

However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The 
dismount road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can 
no longer ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the 
ACCESS rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, 
just like we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of 
traffic or modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only", 
we modify the ACCESS tag.

So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the 
bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.

Here's a clue : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle


On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" <frankosm at xs4all.nl>:
>> I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed (they just have to be pushed).
> at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about cyclists.
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list