[Tagging] one-directinal bicycle dismount on oneway road ?

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Jan 19 11:06:57 UTC 2014


I agree. 

In the UK there is a difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling".
Although in general you may be correct that a dismounted cyclist is
effectively a pedestrian, there are also footways (or whatever you want
to call them) signed as "no cycles", which means that in these cases a
dismounted cyclist is not equivalent to a pedestrian. 

If foot=yes (explicit or implied) implies bicycle=dismount which
corresponds to "no cycling", I would suggest that bicycle=no would then
mean "no cycles" i.e. not even if dismounted. 

But watch out for talking about "what is legally allowed" as it varies
widely by country! 


On 2014-01-19 11:27, Georg Feddern wrote: 

> Am 19.01.2014 09:19, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>> I frequently need to map short pieces of a bicycle routes where cyclists have to dismount and walk their bicyle on a one-road in the "wrong" direction. I need something like a one-directinal bicycle dismount. Any suggestions?
> Yes: Nothing.
> A cyclist who dismount is legally a pedestrian.
> A pedestrian is legally allowed to use a one-way-road in the opposite direction.
> Any bicycle router can use a foot=yes (even implied) just as well as a cyclist=dismount - for routing and/or for advising.
> Georg
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140119/2891a2f0/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list