Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Bainton]

>  I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
but can't remember or instantly find the tag.

barrier=horse_stile

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Chris Hodges  wrote:

> Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of
> work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and
> some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be
> tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
> but can't remember or instantly find the tag.  Some would be a bit
> subjective (especially where length and width are constrained), but
> something comparably coarse to wheelchair=limited would be a start
>
> Despite riding a normal (except for being huge and laden with
> accessories) bike, and being able to lift it, accessibility of bike
> infrastructure is an area of particular interest for me.  I actually
> went for a child seat instead of a trailer because of the
> restrictiveness of some of the bike paths round here.
>
> "Dismount" seems like by far the best tag if your average commuter
> cyclist or even a skilled roadie couldn't ride it - and some of the
> examples I've seen would put off most hardcore mountain bikers, while
> steps have been OK on my hybrid (each step longer than the bike, drops
> small).
>
>
> On 14/12/2020 17:27, Simon Still wrote:
> > I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t
> > had the time to come back to it.
> >
> > From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag
> > ACCESSIBILITY  - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some
> > users - not related to the legality but so that disabled cyclists
> > (unable to dismount), those using trailers  or trikes or other
> > non-standard cycles could specify a route that avoided sections where
> > they could not ride.
> >
> > Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not
> > because of the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was
> > had a ramp, or there was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across
> > (even if there was a cyclist dismount sign) then I think tagging the
> > dismount would be wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is
> >> made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle
> >> routes. My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for
> >> both sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:
> >>
> >> bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is
> >> safe and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does
> >> happen. Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to
> >> one side also exists.
> >>
> >> where there is a ramp:
> >> ramp=yes
> >> bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than
> >> legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
> >> ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport
> >> demographic)
> >>
> >> on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route
> >> would be much longer:
> >> bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)
> >>
> >> I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router
> >> more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.
> >>
> >> And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard
> >> tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a
> >> steep flight of steps around a corner!
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:
> >>> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.
> >>>
> >>> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as
> >>> hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of
> >>> way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles,
> >>> eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at
> >>>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
> >>> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
> >>>
> >>> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount
> >>> for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and
> >>> walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may
> >>> override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets).
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in
> >>> preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful
> >>> tag though.
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Chris Hodges]

Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of 
work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and 
some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be 
tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway 
but can't remember or instantly find the tag.  Some would be a bit 
subjective (especially where length and width are constrained), but 
something comparably coarse to wheelchair=limited would be a start


Despite riding a normal (except for being huge and laden with 
accessories) bike, and being able to lift it, accessibility of bike 
infrastructure is an area of particular interest for me.  I actually 
went for a child seat instead of a trailer because of the 
restrictiveness of some of the bike paths round here.


"Dismount" seems like by far the best tag if your average commuter 
cyclist or even a skilled roadie couldn't ride it - and some of the 
examples I've seen would put off most hardcore mountain bikers, while 
steps have been OK on my hybrid (each step longer than the bike, drops 
small).



On 14/12/2020 17:27, Simon Still wrote:
I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t 
had the time to come back to it.


From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag 
ACCESSIBILITY  - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some 
users - not related to the legality but so that disabled cyclists 
(unable to dismount), those using trailers  or trikes or other 
non-standard cycles could specify a route that avoided sections where 
they could not ride.


Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not 
because of the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was 
had a ramp, or there was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across 
(even if there was a cyclist dismount sign) then I think tagging the 
dismount would be wrong.




On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson > wrote:


FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is 
made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle 
routes. My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for 
both sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:


bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is 
safe and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does 
happen. Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to 
one side also exists.


where there is a ramp:
ramp=yes
bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than 
legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport 
demographic)


on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route 
would be much longer:

bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)

I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router 
more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.


And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard 
tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a 
steep flight of steps around a corner!


Mike

On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:

resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.

However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as 
hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of 
way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, 
eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation 



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says 
bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.


Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount 
for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and 
walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may 
override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets).


I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in 
preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful 
tag though.


Jon



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Simon Still]

I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t had the 
time to come back to it.  

From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag ACCESSIBILITY  
- ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some users - not related to the 
legality but so that disabled cyclists (unable to dismount), those using 
trailers  or trikes or other non-standard cycles could specify a route that 
avoided sections where they could not ride.

Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not because of 
the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was had a ramp, or there 
was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across (even if there was a cyclist 
dismount sign) then I think tagging the dismount would be wrong. 



> On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> 
> FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made of 
> ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My objective 
> is to allow routers to intelligently route for both sport/club/large group 
> riding and happy meandering or commute:
> 
> bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe and 
> practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. Sometimes 
> on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side also exists.
> 
> where there is a ramp:
> ramp=yes
> bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than legalities, 
> Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
> ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport 
> demographic)
> 
> on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would be 
> much longer:
> bicycle=carry (informal/experimental) 
> 
> I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router more 
> quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.
> 
> And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard tagging at 
> the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a steep flight of 
> steps around a corner!
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.
>> 
>> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not 
>> as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, 
>> similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see 
>> "discouraged" at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation 
>> 
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions 
>>  says 
>> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
>> 
>> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for 
>> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a 
>> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in 
>> default (I think it does for CycleStreets). 
>> 
>> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to 
>> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.   
>> 
>> Jon

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Jon Pennycook]

Yes -  step_count is also very useful

Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 17:21, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made
> of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My
> objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both
> sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:
>
> bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe and
> practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. Sometimes
> on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side also exists.
>
> where there is a ramp:
> ramp=yes
> bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than
> legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
> ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport
> demographic)
>
> on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would be
> much longer:
> bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)
>
> I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router more
> quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.
>
> And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard tagging
> at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a steep flight
> of steps around a corner!
>
> Mike
>
> On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>
> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.
>
> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not
> as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes,
> similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see
> "discouraged" at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
>
> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for
> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a
> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in
> default (I think it does for CycleStreets).
>
> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to
> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook 
> wrote:
>
>> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged,
>> not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs
>> (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs)
>> - see "discouraged" at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
>> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
>>
>> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for
>> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a
>> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in
>> default (I think it does for CycleStreets).
>>
>> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to
>> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
 > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will
 allow
 > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.

 Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise
 it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be
 necessary because of the steps.

>>>
>>> The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists
>>> dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory.  It may be
>>> foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not illegal.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Michael Collinson]

FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is 
made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. 
My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both 
sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:


bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe 
and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. 
Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side 
also exists.


where there is a ramp:
ramp=yes
bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than 
legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport 
demographic)


on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would 
be much longer:

bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)

I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router 
more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.


And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard 
tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a 
steep flight of steps around a corner!


Mike

On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:

resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.

However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, 
not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs 
(sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or 
ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation 
 



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions 
 says 
bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.


Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount 
for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and 
walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may 
override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets).


I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference 
to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.


Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook > wrote:


However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as
hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right
of way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all
vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions

says bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists
dismount"'.

Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to
dismount for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting
off and walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on
steps may override the built-in default (I think it does for
CycleStreets).

I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in
preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a
useful tag though.

Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still mailto:simon.st...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley,
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:

On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes.
This will allow
> people who can't dismount to go around by the road.

Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the
steps.  Otherwise
it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that
this will be
necessary because of the steps.


The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps
ahead cyclists dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.




White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory.  It
may be foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not
illegal.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Jon Pennycook]

resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.

However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not
as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes,
similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see
"discouraged" at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.

Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for
most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a
short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in
default (I think it does for CycleStreets).

I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to
bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.

Jon

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook  wrote:

> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not
> as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes,
> similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see
> "discouraged" at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
>
> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for
> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a
> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in
> default (I think it does for CycleStreets).
>
> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to
> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will
>>> allow
>>> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
>>>
>>> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise
>>> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be
>>> necessary because of the steps.
>>>
>>
>> The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists
>> dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory.  It may be
>> foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not illegal.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Simon Still]

> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB 
>  wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley,  > wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow 
> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
> 
> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise 
> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be 
> necessary because of the steps.
> 
> The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists 
> dismount". That seems pretty clear to me. 
> 


White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory.  It may be foolish 
to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not illegal.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Chris Hodges]

There are no relations set for that stretch or the adjacent ones, so 
I'll try to sort that out for at least that bit of NCR45.  It's 
definitely signposted (including the need to dismount)


Chris

On 13/12/2020 19:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:


Dec 13, 2020, 20:52 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:

So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route
really does go down the steps?

Add them to bike route relation.


Obviously it applies only if there is some signed bicycle route there.

If it is just part of cycleway system, without signed bicycle route then
relation should not be created and there is actually a gap in cycleway
system.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[SK53]

NCN 6 has a particularly awkward example
 (sorry
no picture to hand) which is suitably tagged, and definitely signed. The
ramp is (was?) not much more than a half-pipe.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 18:53, Chris Hodges  wrote:

> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>
> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
> isn't much better.
>
> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
> cycle path appears to break
>
> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>
>
> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
> long way away.
>
> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
> go down the steps?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 20:52 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:
>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
>> down the steps?
>>
> Add them to bike route relation.
>

Obviously it applies only if there is some signed bicycle route there.

If it is just part of cycleway system, without signed bicycle route then
relation should not be created and there is actually a gap in cycleway
system.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:

> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
> down the steps?
>
Add them to bike route relation.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, 
wrote:

> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
>
> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise
> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be
> necessary because of the steps.
>

The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists
dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[David Woolley]

On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow 
people who can't dismount to go around by the road.


Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise 
it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be 
necessary because of the steps.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:02 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> highway=steps
> ramp:bicycle=yes
>

Right. The cycle route isn't mapped at all, from what I can tell?

Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
people who can't dismount to go around by the road.



> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges,  wrote:
>
>> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
>> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
>> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
>> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>>
>> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
>> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
>> isn't much better.
>>
>> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
>> cycle path appears to break
>>
>> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>>
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>>
>>
>> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
>> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
>> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
>> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
>> long way away.
>>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
>> go down the steps?
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Adam Snape]

highway=steps
ramp:bicycle=yes

Kind regards,

Adam


On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges,  wrote:

> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>
> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
> isn't much better.
>
> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
> cycle path appears to break
>
> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>
>
> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
> long way away.
>
> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
> go down the steps?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Chris Hodges]

NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross 
Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been 
there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of 
the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18


There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.  
It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path 
isn't much better.


On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route) 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the 
cycle path appears to break


Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3 



It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway 
path accesses the pub car park in Saltford 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've 
seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can 
be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a 
long way away.


So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does 
go down the steps?



Chris


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb