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

Emvee emvee-osm at gmx.de
Sun Oct 18 08:20:12 UTC 2020


>>         Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to
>>         pedestrian crossings
>>
>>     Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians
>>     and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?
>>
>>     Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing
>>     with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your vehicle?
>>
>>     Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?
>
>     Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a
>     pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way
>     cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no
>     to the crossing node?
>
> I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on
> footways with bicycle=no or
> where bicycle=no is implied
>
> It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway
> crossing road and are obligated to
> dismount if crossing road at that point

It would be good if all crossings that require this special handling can
be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing but that is not
possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of pointless tagging.

For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at the
point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the other side of
the road so tagging that part of the way separately is more precise.

> (and yes, in most cases, though not all, it can be retagged as access
> tagging on way)

Can you give an example?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201018/e297d22a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list