[Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

[Volker Schmidt]

> That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
> wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for
> little
> footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.
>

cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
> highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
> relation).
>

> Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If
> there's
> no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
> somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
> incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it
> harder
> for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.
>

Access tags are about legal access. They do not say anything about the
suitability of the highway for the indicated means of transport. We are
mixing the two aspects because of incomplete mapping.
In my area the problem is exactly that: many, even difficult hiking paths
have been tagged bicycle=yes, so they show up on OpenCycleMap like cycle
paths. But when I use routers that do not evaluate the (admittedly, often
present) MTB-related additional tags I end up with my touring bike on paths
where I have difficulty even to push my bike. I presume that your router
would fall into the same trap, or does it evaluate mtb:scale?
I fear the only real answer is a massive push to add physical information
to the paths, so that the routers can decide where to go based on path
descriptions and not based on second-guessing the intentions of the mappers
of the area.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190411/f1f99e9a/attachment.html>