[OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

Maarten Deen mdeen at xs4all.nl
Thu Apr 9 13:34:11 UTC 2015


On 2015-04-09 15:15, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> 1) For me there is no a-priori conflict: according to the tagging,
> this is a pedestrian street, where you cannot ride your bicycle,
> except on a cycle lane which is somewhere on this pedestrian street.
> Why should a pedestrian street not have a bicycle lane like any other
> street.
> Or am I missing something?

This is my issue. As Phil pointed out, there may be cyclelanes that are 
prohibited for bicycles. But what does bicycle=no and cycleway=lane 
mean?
Usually cycleway=lane means that there is a lane on the way that is 
accesible for bicyles. But putting bicycle=no on that way IMHO means 
that routing for bicycles on that way is prohibited, irregardless of 
there being a bicyclelane. So not like your example.

> 2) have you talked to the user mritz who put the bicycle=no tag there?
> He may know the local situation.

I haven't. I have cycled this street myself last year and in my 
recollection there is no lane and cycling is allowed. But the question 
for me at this moment is not "is this situation mapped correctly" but 
"what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles".

Maarten

>> Message: 8
>> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200
>> From: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
>> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
>> Message-ID: <9be720d7ddc344ffa3a382b224a4d7d5 at xs4all.nl>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>> 
>> I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and
>> cycleway=lane. I was using brouter [2] for some bicyclerouting and
>> one
>> of the rules for bikerouting there is that bicycle=no means no
>> bicycles
>> are allowed.
>> IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should
>> be
>> removed. Any thoughts?
>> 
>> [1] <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1]>
>> [2] <http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2]>
>> 
>> Maarten
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:51:34 +0200
>> From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
>> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
>> Message-ID: <20150409115134.7b67a6d2 at Grisznak>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>> 
>> [bicycle=no; cycleway=lane] means that there is a lane for bicycles
>> but
>> cycling is anyway not allowed there.
>> 
>> Typically it would be a tagging mistake, usable cycleway lanes
>> should
>> be tagged as [cycleway=lane].
>> 
>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200
>> Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and
>>> cycleway=lane. I was using brouter [2] for some bicyclerouting
>> and
>>> one of the rules for bikerouting there is that bicycle=no means
>> no
>>> bicycles are allowed.
>>> IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no
>> should be
>>> removed. Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> [1] <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1]>
>>> [2] <http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2]>
>>> 
>>> Maarten
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3]
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3]
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of talk Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6
>> ************************************
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327
> [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/
> [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




More information about the talk mailing list