[Talk-GB] Dodgy bicycle tagging, was Re: help with reverting changeset (all cycleways in a particular area deleted)

[Jass Kurn]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> > But I have noticed that a small number of people on OSM don't seem to
> like cycle infra (or maybe they don't understand it).
>
> And some people like to put bicycle=yes on things that are convenient for
> them to cycle on, even when they are clearly private or have Cyclists
> Dismount signs.
>

Not sure if the following specifically applies to the situations you're
talking about, but searches for bicycle=dismount in the UK suggests there
is a problem with awareness of what the statutory sign means.

In the UK official "Cyclists Dismount" signs, by themselves, are not an
order to step off your pedal cycle and walk. So bicycle=no/dismount should
not be used by default. You should map the information the sign is
providing.

UK blue "cyclists dismount " signs exist to inform a cyclist that for a
short distance ahead cycling will be difficult for one of three reasons.
The three reasons are, and can only be
- Low Headroom
- Width Restriction
- Visibility Restricted to the point where cycling is unsafe

Low Headroom, and width, can both be mapped. Despite being fairly confident
about UK legislation I'm still not sure what "restricted visibility" would
be in practice.

This may be just advice, but it does mean the local authority has removed
themselves from liability for harm caused by ignoring the signs. If a
cyclist had a width related incident on a narrow bridge signed "cyclist
dismount", the cyclists could not blame the highways authority.

The sign MUST NOT be used as "route quality" guidance for any other
situation. Councils have had to remove dismount signs from cattle grids,
bridges with low railings, and poor surfaces.

The blue "cyclist dismount" sign may be used in two other situations to
increase awareness that cycling is unlawful. The signs here do not create
the prohibition, they're allowed increase awareness of a prohibition which
may be missed (especially the second reason)
The two to situations are, and can only be,
- Cycle Route enters a pedestrian area which is not a pedestrian & cycling
area (many named pedestrian areas are now legally pedestrian & cycle
areas). Sign must be below the "no vehicles" sign.
- Cycle Route broken by a pedestrian crossing (eg puffin or zebra
crossing). This annoyance is rare, but is most common where a cycle track
along a former footway (pavement) has been created but it has not been
possible to convert the Pedestrian Crossing into a Toucan Crossing.

There is another situation where you can see lawful "cyclists dismount"
signs. This is on the roadworks sign "Cyclists Dismount and use Footway".
This sign is grossly and unlawfully misused in UK roadworks. It must only
be used to highlight the fact that cyclists should not ride up onto the
footway (pavement) when the carriageway is closed for roadworks.
Unfortunately it is nearly always misused to imply a cycle route has been
closed, and the cyclists should use a temporary "walk way" created for
pedestrians through road works, when it is still possible for cyclists to
use the carriageway.

Cyclist Dismount signs used outside of these legislative situations face
challenges under UK disability legislation.

Jass
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220419/5ab2accf/attachment-0001.htm>