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

[Jass Kurn]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 11:15, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>  I think it's safe to assume that cycling on a section of path marked with
> "Cyclists Dismount" signs is at best going to be conducted more slowly than
> usual, and other legitimate path users may expect the cyclists to be
> dismounted.  There needs to be some way of informing the router that the
> path is slower - I think bicycle=dismount is a good way to do this, and is
> easily traceable to a sign without being subjective.  A router can then
> take the sign into account, and apply some kind of penalty based on the
> probability of actually having to dismount or having to go more slowly than
> usual.
>

Your arguing that the tag bicycle=dismount is a helpful way of indicating
that a section of Cycle Track is slower, but within OSM it can not mean a
slow section of cycle track. For OSM the bicycle=dismount sign means that
you must not ride a bicycle, but pushing the bicycle is allowed. With
accepted OSM issues due overlap with the tag bicycle=no. As I said
previously, the UK blue "cyclists dismount" sign has a
different meaning/use to the OSM cyclists=dismount tag. The blue sign is
neither an order, or advisory, to dismount. As I previously stated, it is
information to expect a significantly adverse - narrow width, low headroom,
or restricted vision, and depending on the type of pedal cycle, you should
consider, and may be better off walking.

For example, I routinely use a type of pedal cycle called a recumbent trike
(Image of recumbent trike
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Trikers.jpg>) and when
cycling my head will be about 1m from the ground. Adding the OSM tag of
bicycle=dismount, because of low headroom would always be ridiculous when
applied to a recumbent bike. What needs to be tagged is the adverse cycling
conditions, so that cyclists are aware and make an appropriate decision.

For example, a brand new (opened in March 2022) shared use pavement in
> Basingstoke:-
> https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ain66KksnxHvjItIuY-wiWBYD2WE4A?e=fske3z
>
> In your initial images, where the cycle track narrows for a bus stop,
based on the info I can take from the image, the sign is being unlawfully
used. That section does not meet one of the three tests for the sign.
Congestion of the cycle track from people getting on/off a bus may be an
issue worthy of some sort of advisory sign or intervention, but it is not a
listed reason for the blue "cyclists dismount" sign.. It is not clear but
there also appears to be unlawful use of tactile paving. This really needs
to be brought up with the Highway Authority. This is a common issue with
some Highway Authorities and construction projects. As I previously stated,
misuse is unlawful, and there are plenty of cases of Highways Authorities
having to remove these signs. Examples being when placed at cattle grids,
bridges with low railings, bad surfaces, etc.


> "End of Cycle Route" signs are even more confusing:-
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1208322826255593
> https://whitchurchbug.org.uk/tag/mill-springs-cycle-path/
>
>
The "End of Cycle Route" sign informs that a statutory cycle track is
coming to the end. The use shown in Mapillary seems correct.

Jass



> Jon
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 10:51, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/04/2022 23:10, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > I would just stick with tagging as per the sign - if it says Dismount,
>> > tag it bicycle=dismount. The router should then take the decision what
>> > to do.
>> >
>> and Jass Kurn wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> That seems entirely reasonable.
>>
>> If there are people who are changing a surveyed "bicycle=dismount" to
>> "=yes" or "=no" because of some external pro- or anti-cycling views then
>> that's wrong, and we probably ought to try and have a conversation with
>> them about that - and as ever a changeset discussion comment is probably
>> the place to start with that.
>>
>> It's perhaps also worth tagging that "dodgy bicycle infrastructure" is
>> sometimes more of a problem than "tagging" - I can think of places a
>> couple of miles away from me where a bit of roadside pavement is
>> probably intended for cycle use too, and part of it is signed as such
>> (either with actual signs or characteristic tactile paving), but there's
>> no indication at all on some sections.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20220422/42e5361e/attachment-0001.htm>