[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Fri Oct 11 10:04:14 UTC 2013

Jonathan, I think you are saying that foot=yes+bicycle=no covers it. It
doesn't because bicycle=dismount is typically advisory, and considerably
less strong than bicycle=no. Usually it means that a pedestrian might take
umbrage, but the authorities aren't interested in making it an offence.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan <bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access> tag to reflect
> this.
> Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/**
> Access-Restrictions<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions>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<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
> 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<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131011/d668c5dd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list