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

Edward Bainton bainton.ete at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 20:33:20 UTC 2020


>  I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
but can't remember or instantly find the tag.

barrier=horse_stile

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> small).
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201214/1562473a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list