[Talk-us] Request for community mediation

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Oct 19 02:29:49 BST 2010

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is
> being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it
> doesn't matter.

It seems dangerous to use an access tag for something other than legal
permission.  A tag like bicycle_avoid=yes would be easier to ignore.
A router very well might treat unknown bicycle=* tags as equivalent to

Still better than bicycle_avoid=yes would be a tag like
"there_is_a_bicycle_route_nearby=yes", as at least then the tag would
be objective and verifiable.  And, of course, best of all would be no
tag.  The router already knows there is a bicycle route nearby.  If a
router wants to preferably route bicycles via bicycle routes when they
are not too far out of the way, the best place to do that is in the
routing software, not to have mappers hand-calculate best routes
whenever bicycle routes appear or disappear.

Of course, if Paul does decide to use
there_is_a_bicycle_route_nearby=yes, I suppose it would be vandalism
to remove it, right Nathan?  ;)

> If it is truly illegal to ride a bike on the specified way unless it is
> necessary to get to your destination, then bicycle=destination is the
> appropriate tag.

What if the law is implicit?  Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?

> However, like Greg, I've never heard of this situation.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Some states have laws banning the use of bicycles on a road when there
is an adjacent/nearby (*) cycleway.

But there is a dispute between Nathan and Paul as to whether or not
such a law applies in certain specific situations.  (How close must
the cycleway be?)  I believe in this case that Nathan is probably
correct, but none of us are lawyers, and it's hard to say
definitively.  This actually brings up a major problem with trying to
map implicit restrictions, as opposed to only mapping explicit

(*) The exact terminology varies.  I'm not sure exactly what the law
in question says, but I remember that it's somewhat ambiguous.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list