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

[Emvee]

On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by 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
>     <https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265>
>
> No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128>
>
> OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.
>
> Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported
> and having a better alternative.

Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is problematic
namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not add that context
but that is something I can do.

Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate osm way
with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a good idea.

>     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.
>
> Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make
> it useless.
If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.
> And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from
> this discussion meaning
> of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page

I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on the Talk
page I have no problem with reverting for now but think it should be
reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was added.

Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did point
out above.

>     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.
>
> Not in cases where
> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to
> dismount
> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where
> cyclists
> are obligated to dismount
Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.
> (3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both
> sides
> (tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
> (or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately
> mapped
> cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
> cyclists must dismount)

There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for routing
purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way the road. So
these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing context while routers
do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on a node.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201021/94521027/attachment-0001.htm>