[Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several carriageways are present).

The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.

The idea to use crossing=* as a on ways stems from user ULamm https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing&type=revision&diff=1077856&oldid=1068935

And became successively popular:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#way/highway/crossing&way/crossing/


The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing&oldid=1093129#Node_or_line

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

Cheers Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201015/1e67f4aa/attachment.htm>