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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 11, 2019, 4:43 PM by voschix at gmail.com:

> In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would like to bring up.
> This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes.
>
> Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do not apply here)
> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the proposed > Default-Access-Restriction for all countries <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions>> .
>
bicycle=yes means that cyclists are allowed to use given path.

In absence of other tags it may be also considered as a hint that cyclists can 
comfortably use this path, though it would be better to explicitly tag surface 
and other relevant info

> OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way as a dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without "bicycle=designated") or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no "bicycle=yes" or with "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering which is also used for "highway=footpath" (see > https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/ <https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/>> )
>
OpenCycleMap is also not supporting oneway:bicycle=no, I would not use it as a documentation
of tags

> The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use this to distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ("highway=path" with "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by tagging them without "bicycle=yes".
>
That is quite poor idea and data collected in this way is much less useful than it could be.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale> sounds like a better idea, especially
as some people may be interested in extreme difficulty and some in casual.

Note that in cases where they remove bicycle=yes for paths where people are allowed to cycle 
or add bicycle=yes where they are not legally allowed to cycle - they map incorrectly and damage
data.

> CAI mappers are discussing whether to remove during that operation the apparently redundant "bicycle=yes" tagging or not. 
>
I would keep them. There are tables with default access on OSM Wiki but it ignores that foot=yes/
bicycle=yes on path are useful indicators that it is not a private path with forbidden entry.

As long as correct this tags are useful.

> I am sure this has been addressed in the passed and I only have not found traces of the old discussions.
> I have no proposal on how to proceed, but would like hear your opinions about this.
>
Do not remove bicycle=yes remotely just because it is on a path, use mtb:scale for tagging paths 
interesting for mtbers rather than misusing bicycle=yes for marking "interesting mtb route".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190412/d01929bc/attachment.html>