[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 07:23:39 UTC 2013


(this thread is so long now, that I  don't remember if I have inserted "my"
problem  with bicycle=no/dismount)

Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are  part
of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths. The legal
requirements is that cyclists dismount to use them (which no cyclist does,
but that's a different story).
Mapping with JOSM (as I do) you are offered the possibility to map
Pedestrian Crossings specifiying whether they can be used by cyclists
(riding the bike) using the "cross on bicycle" option). If you select
"cross by bicycle" JODM inserts "bicycle=yes", if you select no crossing by
bicycle, JOSM inserts "bicycle=no". I only recently have started to insert
manually "bicycle=dismount"

This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread
use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.
(according to taginfo the combination crossing and bicycle is used on 42000
nodes, bicycle=dismount is used on 1900 nodes, bicycle=no is used on 56000
nodes

A similar problem exists with cycle barriers (chicanes), where often
bicycle=no is used to indicate that you have to dismount to pass the
obstacle.

I don't know how routers handle these cases.

I fear that in the end we will be landed with the impossibility for routers
to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount at least on nodes of
type crossing and barrier.



On 16 October 2013 00:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 October 2013 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 2013/10/14 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing
> >
> > +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-)
> > If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have
> it
> > on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO).
>
> That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no
> cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need
> to agree on first.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131016/857c58ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list