[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
sg.forum at gmx.de
Mon Dec 22 18:54:54 UTC 2014
Well, you don’t need it for routing purposes (if bicycle=use_sidepath is used in a certain way). But there are cases where you want do render “compulsory” and “optional” cycle ways in a different ways (e.g. dark blue and light blue). But in order to do that you need the information. Either as bicycle=obligatory or obligatory=yes/no, or … .
Right now, I also have to tag traffic_sign=* and another information if that specific way is adjacent to a road.
From: Martin Vonwald [mailto:imagic.osm at gmail.com]
Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 15:17
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from certain roads! e.g.
I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of me ..
Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable.
Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can be tagged bicycle=no ...
No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the main road and drive on it in order to turn left. So bicycle=no is never correct in such situation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging