[Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

Fernando Trebien fernando.trebien at gmail.com
Wed May 27 13:20:09 UTC 2020


One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and
bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for
various countries around 2015. [14]

[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:12 AM Fernando Trebien
<fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.trebien at gmail.com:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> > <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.trebien at gmail.com:
> >
> > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding
> > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount).
> > Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private.
> >
> > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle
> >
> > The wiki defines bicycle=no the same as access=no, which means no
> > access. If you have foot=no, that means no access by foot.
> >
> > and if you have bicycle=no that means no access by bicycle
> > It says nothing about access with bicycle (pushed/carried).
>
> I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently.
> Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not
> permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that
> "riding bicycles is not permitted but carrying/pushing is," it said
> "bicycles." This has been pointed out before. [2][3] In the same
> table, a distinction is made for values such as bicycle=use_sidepath
> and bicycle=dismount. If misunderstanding is common [4][5], the only
> solution is to create new values and deprecate the old ones, as was
> done for surface=cobblestone. [6]
>
> > bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents
> >
> > How can you conclude that?
> >
> > Based on my experience of how people map such restrictions?
> > Based on my experience how tags in such situations are processed by data consumers?
> >
> > And it is not just me, see
> > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158
>
> The answer on this ticket is specific to Germany.
>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/thread.html#15135
>
> Looks like this thread did not reach a conclusion, resulting in no
> changes to the wiki. Interpretations appear to be divided. To me, it
> looks like this proposition [7] would have solved all situations, but
> I see no usage of the proposed tag or other alternatives proposed
> throughout the discussion.
>
> Since 2014, GraphHopper [8] and OSRM [9][10] implement the
> interpretation of bicycle=dismount as pushing but no riding and
> bicycle=no as no access whatsoever, not even pushing. No questions so
> far regarding this interpretation. Bicycle routing using GraphHopper
> and OSRM has been offered in OSM's main website for a very long time.
> The UK-based CycleStreets journey planner also implements this
> interpretation. [11] Some guys on brouter [12] agree with you, but
> brouter profiles still assign a very high cost when bicycle=no [13].
> You should probably note that those remarks were made 3 years after
> brouter has offered bicycle routing with the current interpretation.
>
> If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be
> treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when
> foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this
> in applications such as OSRM, GraphHopper, brouter and others.
>
> That said, I do not oppose changes to clarify this situation. First we
> need either proper tagging scheme or a change of definitions that
> embraces all situations mentioned so far, then we need to ask
> developers to change their routing profiles to avoid confusion among
> mappers and users.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&oldid=1965874#Bicycle_Restrictions
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015308.html
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount&oldid=1919911
> [4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015315.html
> [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015356.html
> [6] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61042
> [7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015276.html
> [8] https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/695
> [9] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/78
> [10] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5072
> [11] https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/#toc9
> [12] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
> [13] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/226
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien



-- 
Fernando Trebien



More information about the Tagging mailing list