[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

[Hubert]

Hallo.

 

Sorry for not answering for a while. I had/have to concentrate on my
studies.

As for bicycle=obligatory/mandatory, I can see why there is so much
objection for introducing a new value, but I still think that the current
use of bicycle=official/designated/yes is less optimal than it could be.

If some you feels up for it, I would like to hear your thoughts on the
following separated cycle way >>with and without<< the corresponding traffic
sign.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foo
t_path.jpg)

The way I see it, it is “official” and “designated” for cyclist in both
cases, at least from the wording. However, the question remains whether it
should also be tagged as “bicycle=official/designated” or “bicycle=yes” or
something else.

I would also like to ask you to considered the “normal” situation
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycl
e_and_foot_path.jpg) in the same way and in comparison to the stand-alone
cycle way.

 

Yours,

Hubert

 

From: Hubert [mailto:sg.forum at gmx.de] 
Sent: Freitag, 27. März 2015 23:57
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
Subject: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

 

Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, 

I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with
bicycle=obligatory.

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage

The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get your
ideas and comments already.

This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath.

As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am
hoping for a lot of support from the community.

Happy mapping

Hubert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150413/672fbfdf/attachment-0001.html>