[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Sat Mar 28 13:16:59 UTC 2015

1) Well, sometimes it's the best way
2) I'll look it up. Cyclelanes: Same in Germany.
3) Valid point. For now I would say, one should look for bicycle=use_sidepath on the road. Also, if that cycleway is truly mandatory, it means one has to use it, so both roads off limits, so to speak. But I have to think about that a little more. 

> From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:voschix at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 11:32
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
> 1) Please no new tag that breaks existing tagging.
> 2) Please can you give me the missing link in your proposal ("But it 
> remains disputed (Insert Link) whether that obligatory cycleway has to be 
> mapped as a separate way ...). I am interested in that for a different 
> purpose which regards the mandatory-ness of the bicycle lanes in Italy 
> (they are legally cycle-paths with mandatory use).
> 3) For me it seems that the bicycle=use_sidepath is the correct approach, 
> exactly because it is impossible to decide whether a cycleway is mandatory
> or not without saying with respect to what road the requirement is correct. 
> Let's construct a case: you have two parallel roads. In the middle between 
> the two there is a cycleway that is labelled with "mandatory". How do you 
> determine the weighing of the roads for your bicycle routing. Either on the 
> cycleway the "mandatory" tag has a value that defines which of the roads 
> are affected, or the roads themselves are labelled with 
> "bicycle:use_sidepath=yes/no" (note that this is slightly different from 
> bicycle=use_sidepath, but this is less important)
> Volker 
> (Italy)

More information about the Tagging mailing list