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

Chris Hodges chris at c-hodges.co.uk
Mon Dec 14 19:46:26 UTC 2020

Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of 
work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and 
some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be 
tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway 
but can't remember or instantly find the tag.  Some would be a bit 
subjective (especially where length and width are constrained), but 
something comparably coarse to wheelchair=limited would be a start

Despite riding a normal (except for being huge and laden with 
accessories) bike, and being able to lift it, accessibility of bike 
infrastructure is an area of particular interest for me.  I actually 
went for a child seat instead of a trailer because of the 
restrictiveness of some of the bike paths round here.

"Dismount" seems like by far the best tag if your average commuter 
cyclist or even a skilled roadie couldn't ride it - and some of the 
examples I've seen would put off most hardcore mountain bikers, while 
steps have been OK on my hybrid (each step longer than the bike, drops 

On 14/12/2020 17:27, Simon Still wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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/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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list