[Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 21:21:10 UTC 2019
On 14/04/19 01:42, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I am not happy with the assumption that a path on the map without
> indication that it is open to the public is better than not having it
> on the map at all.
If I am navigating using a paper map then that road/path is usefull
information. If it is not on the map then I still don't know if I have
access but additionally I don't know where it goes or how far I have come.
So even when the access is not known having thepath/road there is
usefull to me.
> This is only true if the former is labelled as such (access=unknown).
> Otherwise its useless information. Think about it: You wouldn't think
> for a moment about inserting a road (for cars) without knowing it is
> open for the intended traffic, would you?
> I am frequently using routing for bicycle and, unfortunately, I note
> that there are many more access status errors on paths/footways/tracks
> in the map than for roads for motorized traffic.
> If we as OSM community want to make use of our potentially better
> coverage for foot and bicycle traffic, then we need to improve our
> mapping quality for minor highways.
> Another thing:
> Greg writes:
> " "highway=footway" has exactly the same
> semantics as "highway=path foot=designated". ...Note that both leave
> bicycle and horse as
> I think this is wrong: highway=footway excludes bicycle, or at least
> the footway wiki page is misleading, as the photo shows clearly a
> footway with a traffic sign, that explicitly excludes all other types
> of traffic.
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com
> <mailto:gdt at lexort.com>> wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net
> <mailto:richard at systemed.net>> writes:
> > Volker Schmidt wrote:
> >> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) -
> see the
> >> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
> > 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 <http://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
> > 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.
> Strongly seconded. Richard has it 100% right here, and has
> explained it
> very well. I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to
> be damaging and antisocial.
> As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I
> would say
> that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places
> the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as
> opposed to
> streets which are owned by the government where access is
> controlled by
> statute, more or less. It is very normal for paths in
> conservation land
> in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also
> and bicycle both.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging