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

JB jbosm at mailoo.org
Thu Apr 9 13:48:51 UTC 2015


Please also check horse=no and access=permissive on this way (if you 
lost it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327). Especially horses.
I think that's the drawback of listing all possible tags in editors, and 
people feeling obliged to answer them all.
Perhaps we should create a farmer lobby to insert cow=yes/no/permissive 
tag in all editors, especially iD. And prohibit change uploading if 
unanswered.
JB.


Le 09/04/2015 15:34, Maarten Deen a écrit :
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




More information about the talk mailing list