[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Philip Barnes phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Mon Oct 14 12:53:35 UTC 2013

A short section of pushing a bike along a footpath will often be preferential to only using a route where a bike can be ridden.

Phil (trigpoint)
Sent from my Nokia N9

On 14/10/2013 13:40 Richard Mann wrote:

bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower <socks-openstreetmap.org at earth.li> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
> explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
> University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER
The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860

Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
software etc, that does.


Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131014/9bd6bb51/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list