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

Warin 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
> implicit"
> 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.
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
>
>
>
> 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
>     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.
>
>     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
>     where
>     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
>     horse
>     and bicycle both.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190414/c598fb1c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list