[Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

Simon Still simon.still at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 17:27:33 UTC 2020


I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t had the time to come back to it.  

From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag ACCESSIBILITY  - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some users - not related to the legality but so that disabled cyclists (unable to dismount), those using trailers  or trikes or other non-standard cycles could specify a route that avoided sections where they could not ride.

Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not because of the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was had a ramp, or there was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across (even if there was a cyclist dismount sign) then I think tagging the dismount would be wrong. 



> On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> 
> FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:
> 
> bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side also exists.
> 
> where there is a ramp:
> ramp=yes
> bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
> ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport demographic)
> 
> on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would be much longer:
> bicycle=carry (informal/experimental) 
> 
> I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.
> 
> And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a steep flight of steps around a corner!
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.
>> 
>> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation>
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions> says bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
>> 
>> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets). 
>> 
>> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.   
>> 
>> Jon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201214/db500af4/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list