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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

19 paź 2020, 22:43 od tagging at openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>>>> 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
>
>

How specific data consumers process
OSM data does not really change 
meaning of OSM data.

Especially if it is "that part is currently
not supported"
>
> If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way      will have the correct access rights.
>
>
And if mapper wants to map it right now
this tagging is method to do that.

Note that in some regions people 
decided to map sidewalks with 
sidewalk tag not with separate ways
>
> Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere      proposed, a new tag should be used instead.
>
>
I also see no need for a new tag :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201019/4056e8b6/attachment.htm>