[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers to 
exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what 
people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no 
cycling').

I looked to the wiki for clarity on usage, but the Bicycle page under "Bicycle 
restrictions" only refers explicitly to cycling in the entries for 
bicycle=dismount and oneway:bicycle=yes/no . Other entries refer simply to 
bicycles and specifically bicycle:no is defined as "Where bicycles are not 
permitted". So I can't see justification for assuming that people will have 
only interpreted the bicycle=no tag to mean "no cycling". Maybe they did, 
maybe not.

The wiki page Key:access does refer to "bicycle=* (cyclists)" but the page for 
country defaults (OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions) just refers to 
bicycles not cyclists or cycling.

BTW: The country access defaults page shows that in 16 of the countries for 
which defaults are given, pedestrians can walk on the cycleways (sometimes, 
only if there is no adjacent sidewalk). So it is unclear why the OSM 'default' 
for a cycleway is said to be foot=no. Related to this: the 
Tag:highway=cycleway page says "In most countries foot access on cycleways is 
not allowed per default (see default access restrictions)." This is incorrect. 
The first line on that page "The highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way 
which is mainly or exclusively used by cyclists." could probably better read 
"mainly used or sometimes exclusively used ..." .



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan" <bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com>
To: <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


> Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't 
> have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians 
> as well.
>
> Jonathan
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
> On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:
>> Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
>> start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
>> there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
>> occur often:
>> * cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
>> consider bicycle=no)
>> * cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
>> consider bicycle=dismount)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging