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

[Emvee]

>>> This recent wiki change by Emvee
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Emvee> is in my view not
>>> helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
>>> tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question,
>>> but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe
>>> the establsihed methods of tagging)
>>
>> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
>> see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>>
>> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
>> combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
>> useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
>> time crossing data is far from being complete.
>>
>> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
>> not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
>> deduced from the connecting ways.
>>
> We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped
> with tags at the highway=<street> with no seperately mapped ways.
> Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
> Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.
>
> How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?

Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to
retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for routing
while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing nodes _without_
a crossing way routers will not treat them different if there is
bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever

If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way will
have the correct access rights.

Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere proposed, a
new tag should be used instead.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201019/4c096e12/attachment-0001.htm>