[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 11 10:00:54 UTC 2013
This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map
that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not
allowed. Although, in this case I can't see how that works, as a
pedestrian how do you get to the other side of the service road because
it would appear neither pedestrians nor cyclist are allowed on these
sections? Typical idiocy of local bureaucrats.
On 11/10/2013 08:24, Petr Holub wrote:
> Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
> is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
> Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
> make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
> (and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).
> This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At
> every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and
> cross the lateral road as pedestrian
> well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk -
> in my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
> In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or
> serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding
> legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey
> the crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as
> Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed
> to use a normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on your bike in the Czech
> Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra for bicycle
> crossing, but in that case the "end of cycleway" sign is not used.
> I've posted the most blatant examples of idiotic cycleways.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging