[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Mar 28 23:45:58 UTC 2015


On 28/03/2015 11:47 PM, Hubert wrote:
> I’m not sure if I understand your question. So please tell me whether I did.
>
> A parallel cycleway to a road with bicycle=no could be very close, even separated by a curb only. If cyclist are prohibited from those driving lanes in general, that cycleway  should not be considered bicycle=obligatory but bicycle=designated in my mind. It like you said, routers will find the next available way for cyclists.
>
>> From: Bryce Nesbitt [mailto:bryce2 at obviously.com]
>> Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 00:26
>> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
>>
>> How close is tagging the road "bicycle=no", with an adjacent
>> "highway=cycleway"?
>> If the cyclists are prohibited from the road, the routers will find the
>> next best route, which may or may not be the adjacent cycleway.
>

The problem is that if the cycleway does no allow a turn at the next intersection, then the bicycle is allowed to use the road to gain access to the next road.
So it is a conditional no. At least that was one explanation given to me. Puzzling for those that have not come across it.




More information about the Tagging mailing list