[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Dan S danstowell+osm at gmail.com
Sun Oct 20 20:22:53 UTC 2013

2013/10/19 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2013/10/19 Frank Little <frankosm at xs4all.nl>
>> 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').
> shall we really question the meaning of well established tags every 2 years
> because in the meantime some mappers might have used it for stuff it wasn't
> intended for?

As Frank pointed out in his message, the wiki is not very explicit
about this non-obvious distinction. Therefore, we shouldn't be
surprised if the meaning gets questioned every 2 years!

FWIW you and others have persuaded me that perhaps indeed we should
have a separate no-pushing-bicycles tag that's not part of bicycle=*
("bicycle:pushed=*"...? or is there anything in actual use?). So a
good way to resolve this would be to make sure that (a) there's a way
to indicate no-pushing-bicycles; and (b) the wiki is explicit on the
distinction we've been discussing (at least all the places Frank
mentions), and preferably crossreferences the no-pushing-bicycles tag
as appropriate.

(Richard mentioned wanting a tag supported by routers. I humbly guess
that can come later - routers don't care about tags that aren't used

Thanks all for your patience


More information about the Tagging mailing list