Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

One possibility to state your opinion is JOSM ticket #9158 [1]. If
logged in, you can vote on every page.

Cheers fly


[1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158

On 07.10.2013 18:09, fly wrote:

> I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.
> 
> At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
> existence of some.
> 
> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
> 
> I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes.
> 
> How is the situation in other countries ?
> 
> 
> Cheers fly
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 20/ott/2013 um 22:22 schrieb Dan S :
> 
> we should
> have a separate no-pushing-bicycles tag that's not part of bicycle=*
> ("bicycle:pushed=*"...? or is there anything in actual use?)


not sure about actual use, but I'd prefer bicycle_pushing=no or 
pushing_bicycle=no or sth. different for bringing your bicycle (object) 
somewhere, and NOT a subtag of cycling, i.e. not bicycle:*

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Dan S]

2013/10/19 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2013/10/19 Frank Little 
>>
>> As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers
>> to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what
>> people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no
>> cycling').
>
> shall we really question the meaning of well established tags every 2 years
> because in the meantime some mappers might have used it for stuff it wasn't
> intended for?

As Frank pointed out in his message, the wiki is not very explicit
about this non-obvious distinction. Therefore, we shouldn't be
surprised if the meaning gets questioned every 2 years!

FWIW you and others have persuaded me that perhaps indeed we should
have a separate no-pushing-bicycles tag that's not part of bicycle=*
("bicycle:pushed=*"...? or is there anything in actual use?). So a
good way to resolve this would be to make sure that (a) there's a way
to indicate no-pushing-bicycles; and (b) the wiki is explicit on the
distinction we've been discussing (at least all the places Frank
mentions), and preferably crossreferences the no-pushing-bicycles tag
as appropriate.

(Richard mentioned wanting a tag supported by routers. I humbly guess
that can come later - routers don't care about tags that aren't used
yet)

Thanks all for your patience

Dan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Frank Little 

> As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers
> to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what
> people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no
> cycling').
>


shall we really question the meaning of well established tags every 2 years
because in the meantime some mappers might have used it for stuff it wasn't
intended for?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers to 
exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what 
people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no 
cycling').


I looked to the wiki for clarity on usage, but the Bicycle page under "Bicycle 
restrictions" only refers explicitly to cycling in the entries for 
bicycle=dismount and oneway:bicycle=yes/no . Other entries refer simply to 
bicycles and specifically bicycle:no is defined as "Where bicycles are not 
permitted". So I can't see justification for assuming that people will have 
only interpreted the bicycle=no tag to mean "no cycling". Maybe they did, 
maybe not.


The wiki page Key:access does refer to "bicycle=* (cyclists)" but the page for 
country defaults (OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions) just refers to 
bicycles not cyclists or cycling.


BTW: The country access defaults page shows that in 16 of the countries for 
which defaults are given, pedestrians can walk on the cycleways (sometimes, 
only if there is no adjacent sidewalk). So it is unclear why the OSM 'default' 
for a cycleway is said to be foot=no. Related to this: the 
Tag:highway=cycleway page says "In most countries foot access on cycleways is 
not allowed per default (see default access restrictions)." This is incorrect. 
The first line on that page "The highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way 
which is mainly or exclusively used by cyclists." could probably better read 
"mainly used or sometimes exclusively used ..." .




- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't 
have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians 
as well.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:

Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
occur often:
* cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=no)
* cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=dismount)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran 

> Depending on cultural
> differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
> definitely not as means of transportation.
>


put "dog riding" in your preferred search engine pic search and you'll get
an awful lot of pictures, including stuff like a dog riding a bike ;-)
http://econewsnetwork.org/2012/05/fun-video-of-the-day-dog-riding-a-bike/

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jo]

People in Alaska might disagree with you... I have no idea whether dog
sledges are banned on certain streets, of course.

Jo


2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran 

> Hello,
>
> SomeoneElse wrote:
> > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out
> that
> >> "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike"
> as
> >> this has nothing to do with cycling.
> >
> > What about the equivalent situation for horses?
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011
> >
> > Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that
> this is
> > very definitely related to horseriding. :)
>
> It's even more interesting to consider dogs. Bicycles and horses can
> both be considered as means of transportation. Depending on cultural
> differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
> definitely not as means of transportation. Then it will become clear,
> that in OSM two things are mixed: $entity=no can refer to a ban of
> driving it, if $entity is a means of transportation or it can refer to a
> ban of it as object, if $entity is not a means of transportation. We now
> have to think of a most general way to tag, how to ban an entity as
> object if it can be considered as means of transportation.
>
> Yours,
> Stefan
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Pieren]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stefan Tiran
 wrote:

> Depending on cultural
> differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
> definitely not as means of transportation.

Depends your size and the size of the dog...

Pieren, tagging footways with dog:dismount=yes, just in case.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Stefan Tiran]

Hello,

SomeoneElse wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that 
>> "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as 
>> this has nothing to do with cycling.
> 
> What about the equivalent situation for horses?
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011
> 
> Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that this 
> is 
> very definitely related to horseriding. :)

It's even more interesting to consider dogs. Bicycles and horses can
both be considered as means of transportation. Depending on cultural
differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
definitely not as means of transportation. Then it will become clear,
that in OSM two things are mixed: $entity=no can refer to a ban of
driving it, if $entity is a means of transportation or it can refer to a
ban of it as object, if $entity is not a means of transportation. We now
have to think of a most general way to tag, how to ban an entity as
object if it can be considered as means of transportation.

Yours,
Stefan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

SomeoneElse  wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out
> 
> > that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing
> a 
> > bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling.
> 
> What about the equivalent situation for horses?
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011 
> 
> 
> Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say
> that 
> this is very definitely related to horseriding. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

What exactly are we seeing here?  I thought a dashed line means a tunnel, but 
that doesn't seem likely in this case.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We 
don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning 
pedestrians as well.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:

Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
occur often:
* cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=no)
* cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=dismount)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/16 SomeoneElse 

> What about the equivalent situation for horses?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011
>
> Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that
> this is very definitely related to horseriding. :)
>



maybe this is different under UK legislation, but in Germany the rules for
horses (and also for other animals like cows, donkeys, zebras, elephants,
etc.) are the same regardless if the horse rider is mounted or walking
aside the horse. FWIW, the wiki says, "horse" is about "horse riders"

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[SomeoneElse]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out 
that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a 
bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling.


What about the equivalent situation for horses?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011 



Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that 
this is very definitely related to horseriding. :)


Cheers,

Andy

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/16 Richard Mann 

> Nothing to fear except a long walk back to where you started when you try
> to get out here: http://goo.gl/maps/9ncnD
>
> I guess you could throw the bike over the fence. Or wait until one of
> those cars opens the gate.
>
> (and don't ask me what you do if you are in a wheelchair)
>
>

with a bike you might be able to unmount the wheels and carry it all
through in pieces (or maybe even if you put it upright), but for
wheelchairs or strollers I don't have a solution either. Maybe strollers
fit when folded, wheelchairs seem to be locked in though :(

Did you contact local authorities? Is that public ground?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/16 Dan S 

> and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
> there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
> occur often:
> * cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
> consider bicycle=no)
> * cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
> consider bicycle=dismount)
>


I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that
"bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as
this has nothing to do with cycling.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Dan S]

2013/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
>> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>>
>> This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread 
>> use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.
>
> there is really no difference in meaning between bicycle=no (cycling is 
> legally forbidden) and bicycle=dismount (you may not cycle here legally)

Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
occur often:
* cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=no)
* cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=dismount)

The problem is that different groups of people have interpreted
bicycle=no differently. That's the problem that this thread should
address, if it achieves anything. But it is not helpful when you
assert "there is really no difference in meaning".

Best
Dan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2013-10-16 at 10:10:50 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> >(this thread is so long now, that I  don't remember if I have
> >inserted "my" problem  with bicycle=no/dismount)
> >
> >Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which
> >are  part of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure
> >cycle paths. The legal requirements is that cyclists dismount to
> >use them (which no cyclist does, but that's a different story).
> 
> Where did you get this "legal requirement" from?
> As a tourist I wouldn't interprete the sign as "forced to dismount",
> just as "there is no combined footway/cycleway" anymore.

It comes from the traffic law: regular crossings are bu default for 
pedestrians only, so if you are on a bicicles you have to dismount and "turn 
yourself into a pedestrian". There are special crossings 
that allow both bicicles and pedestrians where you can cross 
without dismounting, but they are quite rare (in my town 
I can remember only one).

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

> There are only some singular situations where "pushing bicycles as an
object" is not allowed.
> In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would
carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ...
> none I suppose, but I never was in such situation yet.
>
> Georg
Nothing to fear except a long walk back to where you started when you try
to get out here: http://goo.gl/maps/9ncnD

I guess you could throw the bike over the fence. Or wait until one of those
cars opens the gate.

(and don't ask me what you do if you are in a wheelchair)

Actually, I don't think this is a major issue. It's enclosed land on the
map, and no cycle route is shown through. So you'd be unlikely to assume
you could go through there anyway.

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Georg Feddern]

Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
(this thread is so long now, that I  don't remember if I have inserted 
"my" problem  with bicycle=no/dismount)


Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are  
part of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths. 
The legal requirements is that cyclists dismount to use them (which no 
cyclist does, but that's a different story).


Where did you get this "legal requirement" from?
As a tourist I wouldn't interprete the sign as "forced to dismount", 
just as "there is no combined footway/cycleway" anymore.
In this case I would  just be carefully pay attention to the traffic 
situation - and go on as on every other combined road with motorvehicles.



This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely 
widespread use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of 
bicycle=dismount.
(according to taginfo the combination crossing and bicycle is used on 
42000 nodes, bicycle=dismount is used on 1900 nodes, bicycle=no is 
used on 56000 nodes


A similar problem exists with cycle barriers (chicanes), where often 
bicycle=no is used to indicate that you have to dismount to pass the 
obstacle.


I don't know how routers handle these cases.

I fear that in the end we will be landed with the impossibility for 
routers to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount at 
least on nodes of type crossing and barrier.




You already got the point:
bicycle= no at OSM is always interpreted (and defined) as "no cycling".
bicyle=* is an access role, a part of vehicle(!) traffic, not an object.
It does not say anything about dismounted yet - this is an 
interpretation of "foot=*" which is the implicit role in most cases then.


And in the majority of situations in the world this is the normal 
combination.
There are only some singular situations where "pushing bicycles as an 
object" is not allowed.
In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would 
carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ... none I suppose, 
but I never was in such situation yet.


Georg


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> 
> This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread use 
> of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.


there is really no difference in meaning between bicycle=no (cycling is legally 
forbidden) and bicycle=dismount (you may not cycle here legally)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Volker Schmidt]

(this thread is so long now, that I  don't remember if I have inserted "my"
problem  with bicycle=no/dismount)

Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are  part
of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths. The legal
requirements is that cyclists dismount to use them (which no cyclist does,
but that's a different story).
Mapping with JOSM (as I do) you are offered the possibility to map
Pedestrian Crossings specifiying whether they can be used by cyclists
(riding the bike) using the "cross on bicycle" option). If you select
"cross by bicycle" JODM inserts "bicycle=yes", if you select no crossing by
bicycle, JOSM inserts "bicycle=no". I only recently have started to insert
manually "bicycle=dismount"

This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread
use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.
(according to taginfo the combination crossing and bicycle is used on 42000
nodes, bicycle=dismount is used on 1900 nodes, bicycle=no is used on 56000
nodes

A similar problem exists with cycle barriers (chicanes), where often
bicycle=no is used to indicate that you have to dismount to pass the
obstacle.

I don't know how routers handle these cases.

I fear that in the end we will be landed with the impossibility for routers
to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount at least on nodes of
type crossing and barrier.



On 16 October 2013 00:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 October 2013 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> >
> > 2013/10/14 Richard Mann 
> >>
> >> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing
> >
> > +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-)
> > If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have
> it
> > on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO).
>
> That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no
> cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need
> to agree on first.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16/ott/2013 um 00:49 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" 
> :
> 
> That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no
> cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need
> to agree on first.


IMHO as bicycle is a tag about "cyclists" according to the wiki, the answer to 
your question should be "no cycling"

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 14 October 2013 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> 2013/10/14 Richard Mann 
>>
>> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing
>
> +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-)
> If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have it
> on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO).

That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no
cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need
to agree on first.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2013/10/14 Richard Mann 
> 
> > bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-)
> If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to
> have it
> on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

If pushing a bicycle is permitted on most footways, but not all, it would be 
useful to tag the distinction, so that a rider planning which route to take 
will know that they can't go through a particular foot-only shortcut by 
dismounting and pushing the bicycle.  This would also allow renderers to 
distinguish foot-only ways vs. foot and foot-while-pushing-a-bicycle ways.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/14 Richard Mann 

> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing




+1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-)
If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have it
on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Am 14.10.2013 14:40, schrieb Richard Mann:
> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing

Only if you do not allow parts to be footpaths where you push you bike.

How about bicycle_pushed=* or pushing_bicycle=*. Maybe even
2wheel_vehicle_pushed ?

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

A short section of pushing a bike along a footpath will often be preferential 
to only using a route where a bike can be ridden.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 14/10/2013 13:40 Richard Mann wrote:

bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing



On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower 
 wrote:

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
> and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
> explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
> University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER
RIDDEN OR NOT")
The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
http://cycle.st/p17861

Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
software etc, that does.

s

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

Wow, Oxford's parks sound a fun place to be! Not! ;-)

On a more serious note, I would have thought tagging this one: 
http://cycle.st/p17860 would be straight forward because no pedestrian 
and no bicycle also means no pushing a bicycle.  You gotta wonder who 
can use he gate? :-)


But thanks Stephen for the heads up on such tough restrictions on bike 
users in the UK, have never seen anything so extreme.  But then I've not 
been to Oxford for about 20 years!


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 14/10/2013 13:23, Stephen Gower wrote:

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER
RIDDEN OR NOT")
The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
http://cycle.st/p17861

Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
software etc, that does.

s

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower <
socks-openstreetmap@earth.li> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> wrote:
> >
> > and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
> > explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
> > University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).
>
> Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks,
> they
> had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
> the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
> http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES
> WHETHER
> RIDDEN OR NOT")
> The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
> http://cycle.st/p17861
>
> Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
> situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
> software etc, that does.
>
> s
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Stephen Gower]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> 
> and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
> explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
> University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER
RIDDEN OR NOT") 
The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
http://cycle.st/p17861

Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
software etc, that does.

s

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

I do not know many cases of dedicated cycleways without a nearby path or
road in Germany.

On a break down you should get you vehicle out of the way which means
you are allowed to push/carry your bicycle to the next path. Similar
even counts for motorcars which you are allowed to push to a some
parking place on the road.

All along the rules in NL and DE are pretty the same except for
pedestrians on dedicated cycleways.

fly


Am 11.10.2013 14:30, schrieb Frank Little:
> That depends where you are located, Mike. The rules in Germany, for
> example, are different from the Netherlands.
> Martin's statement is not necessarily true in the Netherlands (and
> perhaps that is where the confusion begins).
> 
> In the Netherlands, the law states:
> pedestrians use the sidewalk; if there is none, they use the cycleway;
> if there is none, they use the (side of the) road.
> Cycleways in the Netherlands are not signed separately for pedestrian use.
> 
> There are three categories of cycleway, one only for bicycles, one for
> bicycles and lightest category of mopeds (OSM: mofa), one where the
> other category of mopeds is also allowed.
> All three have a different sign. (The bicycle | pedestrians signs are
> not used at all.)
> It is not compulsory to use the first kind, the other two are compulsory
> (you are not allowed to cycle on the adjacent road).
> Whether you have to use the road instead of the cycleway with a heavy
> class moped depends on the signs.
> In general, the heavier class moped in the Netherlands must use the road
> in the built-up area, but not always.
> 
> The general traffic regulations say that if you push your bicycle, you
> follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
> This also applies to mopeds (both classes) and motorbikes: if you push
> it, you follow the rules for pedestrians.
> You do not become a pedestrian: your moped / motorbike needs a license
> plate and road insurance.
> And you need an appropriate driving license (for a moped/motorbike),
> although you do not need to wear your helmet.
> 
> If your bike breaks down and you push it  and there is no sidewalk, you
> behave as if you were a pedestrian and stay on the cycleway.
> In the Netherlands.
> (Other countries may have different rules.)
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Mike N" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
> 
> 
>> On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
>>> because pedestrians aren't allowed there
>>
>>   I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown
>> and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway
>> and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Am 09.10.2013 09:40, schrieb Georg Feddern:
> Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that
>> bicycle=no
>> is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
>> Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
>> make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
>> http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
>> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
>> (and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).
>>
>>
>> This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At
>> every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and
>> cross the lateral road as pedestrian
> 
> well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - in
> my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
> In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or
> serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding
> legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey the
> crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as cyclist.

+1

highway=crossing
crossing=unmarked
sloped_curb=both

would be appropriate.

cu
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Am 11.10.2013 12:26, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 
> 2013/10/11 Jonathan mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>>
> 
> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
> 
> This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to
> map that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is
> not allowed. 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't interpret this that cycling or walking isn't allowed, it
> simply seems to be a way to make pedestrians and cyclists aware that
> they are crossing a road and therefor should pay attention. It ends a
> dedicated shared foot-cycleway, but it is not prohibiting them.

+1

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:53 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:
> > +1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount
> 
> To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
> four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
> whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
> push a bike:
> 
> (a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
> (b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
> (c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
> (d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed
> 
> I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
> UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
> could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
> pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
> on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
> pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
> an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
> (Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
> ago).
> 
> Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
> distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
> where you can go with your bike and at what pace.
> 
> Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
> with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
> people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
> either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
> using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
> cases (a) and (b).
> 
> I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
> information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
> bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
> discussed and agreed upon later.
> 
> With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
> now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
> rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
> distingiush between the four cases above:
> 
> (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
> (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no
> 
> bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
> by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
> push your bike).
> 
> For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
> the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
> you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
> default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
> carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
> tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).
> 
+1

b can also cover roads where pedestrians are prohibited, but cyclists
are allowed. A real life example I can think of is the A483 between
Chirk and Wrexham.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Frank Little 

> In the Netherlands, the default for all cycleways is (or should be)
> foot=yes if there is no adjacent sidewalk in OSM.
> Since it is the default, it is often not explicitly tagged.
>


IMHO better be explicit if you want to be sure. If the "default" (by law)
is dependent on other ways (like the presence of a footway) it will be too
complicated for almost every (at least) existing application to understand
(also because you won't be sure if the ways are parallel or are maybe at
different levels separated by a retaining wall etc.).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

Nice summary: thanks, Robert.
In the Netherlands:

(a) Yes, this is true: if there is no sidewalk (very common outside the 
built-up area).
(b) This is only true if there is a sidewalk; if there is no sidewalk, 
see (a). Different countries have different rules.
(c) This is generally true on footpaths and pedestrian areas (unless 
otherwise signed).
(d) Yes, if it is a pedestrian zone / signed footpath (=no cycling) and 
also specifically signed 'no pushed bicycles' (quite rare)


In the Netherlands, the default for all cycleways is (or should be) 
foot=yes if there is no adjacent sidewalk in OSM.

Since it is the default, it is often not explicitly tagged.
The regulations here say that when you push a bike/moped/motorcycle you 
follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
Therefore, pushing a bike/moped/motorcycle on a cycleway is allowed by 
default and does not need explicit tagging in NL.
The default for all footways and pedestrian zones is bicycle=no (no 
cycling). Pushing a bike etc. is allowed by default.
In a small number of cases only is a new tag needed for the 'no bike 
pushing' situation.

(I retract my previous claim that bicycle=no will cover those cases.)




On 11 October 2013 12:55, Robert Whittaker wrote:



To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Stefan Tiran]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> IMHO we should encourage tagging of the permission of pedestrians to push a 
> bicycle only for those few places where it isn't allowed to do so (and 
> probably 
> in many of these cases it won't just be forbidden to push a bicycle or two, 
> but 
> also to carry it/them, while it might mostly be allowed to carry the bicycles 
> in 
> a box just like you'd be allowed to carry any other big loads).

+1


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

That depends where you are located, Mike. The rules in Germany, for 
example, are different from the Netherlands.
Martin's statement is not necessarily true in the Netherlands (and 
perhaps that is where the confusion begins).


In the Netherlands, the law states:
pedestrians use the sidewalk; if there is none, they use the cycleway; 
if there is none, they use the (side of the) road.
Cycleways in the Netherlands are not signed separately for pedestrian 
use.


There are three categories of cycleway, one only for bicycles, one for 
bicycles and lightest category of mopeds (OSM: mofa), one where the 
other category of mopeds is also allowed.
All three have a different sign. (The bicycle | pedestrians signs are 
not used at all.)
It is not compulsory to use the first kind, the other two are compulsory 
(you are not allowed to cycle on the adjacent road).
Whether you have to use the road instead of the cycleway with a heavy 
class moped depends on the signs.
In general, the heavier class moped in the Netherlands must use the road 
in the built-up area, but not always.


The general traffic regulations say that if you push your bicycle, you 
follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
This also applies to mopeds (both classes) and motorbikes: if you push 
it, you follow the rules for pedestrians.
You do not become a pedestrian: your moped / motorbike needs a license 
plate and road insurance.
And you need an appropriate driving license (for a moped/motorbike), 
although you do not need to wear your helmet.


If your bike breaks down and you push it  and there is no sidewalk, you 
behave as if you were a pedestrian and stay on the cycleway.

In the Netherlands.
(Other countries may have different rules.)


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike N" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
because pedestrians aren't allowed there


  I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown 
and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway 
and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

+1 Totally agree, thanks Robert for a sensible summary.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 11:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 11/ott/2013 um 13:23 schrieb Mike N :
> 
> I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown and can't 
> repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway and back home via 
> the roadway instead of the cycleway?


yes, if you have a break down it would be allowed, like you could leave your 
car on a motorway in case of a breakdown 

cheers 
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

Yes, many apologies, was a mis-click.

Sorry Martin

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 11:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:




2013/10/11 Jonathan >


No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is
there.  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we
map the result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in
the real world, we are representing the real world to computers.

http://bigfatfrog67.me


On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have
done that, but that doesn't change the sign.
>And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.



Please pay attention when citing, this is not what I wrote but what I 
cited from Frank little. Thank you.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Mike N]

On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
because pedestrians aren't allowed there


  I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown 
and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway 
and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 

> (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
> (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no
>


IMHO we should encourage tagging of the permission of pedestrians to push a
bicycle only for those few places where it isn't allowed to do so (and
probably in many of these cases it won't just be forbidden to push a
bicycle or two, but also to carry it/them, while it might mostly be allowed
to carry the bicycles in a box just like you'd be allowed to carry any
other big loads).

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle because
pedestrians aren't allowed there, but I wouldn't tag this explicitly on
each of these cycleways because it would lead to a huge amount of
redundance (as mostly pushing a bicycle means nothing other than "foot").

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:
> +1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

I think they count as bicycles, providing the top speed is less than 15mph, 
about 25kph.

Can't see the point myself, slower than my proper bike and don't keep me fit.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 11/10/2013 11:32 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2013/10/11 Philip Barnes 

In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.


Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the A55.


what about mofas? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:mofa

that's a class of bicycles with an assisting motor, regulated for a maxspeed of 
25km/h, and what about electric bicycles?


FWIW, in Germany they are allowed outside closed settlements and forbidden 
inside.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Philip Barnes 

> In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.
>
>
> Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the
> A55.
>


what about mofas? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:mofa
that's a class of bicycles with an assisting motor, regulated for a
maxspeed of 25km/h, and what about electric bicycles?

FWIW, in Germany they are allowed outside closed settlements and forbidden
inside.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Jonathan 

> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
>
> This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map
> that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not
> allowed.



I wouldn't interpret this that cycling or walking isn't allowed, it simply
seems to be a way to make pedestrians and cyclists aware that they are
crossing a road and therefor should pay attention. It ends a dedicated
shared foot-cycleway, but it is not prohibiting them.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Jonathan 

> No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is there.
>  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the result of
> those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, we are
> representing the real world to computers.
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
>
> On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> >We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that,
>> but that doesn't change the sign.
>> >And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.
>>
>

Please pay attention when citing, this is not what I wrote but what I cited
from Frank little. Thank you.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.

Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the A55.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 10/10/2013 22:36 Frank Little wrote:

Here's an example from the Netherlands:

http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/

It's a cycleway (mopeds also allowed). No change in highway type here.
It's cycleway all the way down.


There were accidents. The local authority decided that the best way to
reduce the risk of accidents was ...
... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.


We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that,
but that doesn't change the sign.
And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there. There are
plenty of signs I disagree with.
(Or even ignore.) But that doesn't mean we should leave them out of OSM.


Is it "legal": Well, the council placed it (though I couldn't find a
basis for it in the local ordinance).
Could a strategically-placed policeman fine you if you ignored the sign?
(Like most people will do).
Probably he could (there's always the catch-all in the road
regulations), though in practice he might not.
If you cause an accident, your insurance company might want to take it
into account.


I am not in favour of tagging "dismount" for any other reason than a
sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation).



- Original Message -
From: "fly" 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



> On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a
>>> change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown! The only way to
>>> tag
>>> the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude
>>> bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/
>>
>> looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a
>> cycleway. It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.
>
> Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged:
>
> highway=path
> foot=yes/designated
> vehicle=no
> note=bicycle dismount sign
>
> or it is unofficial and
>
> highway=path
> foot=yes/designated
> bicycle=designated
> vehicle=no
> note=bicycle dismount sign
>
> no need for bicycle=dismount
>
> cu
> fly
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> lowfligh...@googlemail.com
> http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/


___

Tagging mailing list

lowfligh...@googlemail.com
http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

Jonathan, I think you are saying that foot=yes+bicycle=no covers it. It
doesn't because bicycle=dismount is typically advisory, and considerably
less strong than bicycle=no. Usually it means that a pedestrian might take
umbrage, but the authorities aren't interested in making it an offence.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan  wrote:

> We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept
> of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad
> that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with your
> bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow bicycles to
> even be present on some ways.
>
> So, we need to adjust the values in the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
> wiki/Access  tag to reflect
> this.
>
> Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/**
> Access-Restrictionsthere
>  are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we
> address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are
> being ridden or not.
>
> However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The dismount
> road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can no longer
> ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the ACCESS
> rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, just like
> we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of traffic or
> modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only", we modify the
> ACCESS tag.
>
> So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the
> bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.
>
> Here's a clue : 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:bicycle
>
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
> On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>  Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :
>>>
>>> I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed
>>> (they just have to be pushed).
>>>
>>
>> at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about
>> cyclists.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>> __**_
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg

This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map 
that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not 
allowed.  Although, in this case I can't see how that works, as a 
pedestrian how do you get to the other side of the service road because 
it would appear neither pedestrians nor cyclist are allowed on these 
sections? Typical idiocy of local bureaucrats.



http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:24, Petr Holub wrote:


Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At 
every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and 
cross the lateral road as pedestrian



well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - 
in my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding 
legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey 
the crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as 
cyclist


Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed 
to use a normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on your bike in the Czech 
Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra for bicycle 
crossing, but in that case the "end of cycleway" sign is not used. 
I've posted the most blatant examples of idiotic cycleways.


Petr



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is 
there.  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the 
result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, 
we are representing the real world to computers.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but 
that doesn't change the sign.
>And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept 
of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad 
that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with 
your bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow 
bicycles to even be present on some ways.


So, we need to adjust the values in the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect this.


Looking at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions 
there are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we 
address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are 
being ridden or not.


However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The 
dismount road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can 
no longer ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the 
ACCESS rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, 
just like we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of 
traffic or modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only", 
we modify the ACCESS tag.


So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the 
bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.


Here's a clue : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :

I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed (they 
just have to be pushed).


at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about 
cyclists.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed 
> (they just have to be pushed).


at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about 
cyclists.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 23:36 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> was ...
> ... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.
> 
> We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but 
> that doesn't change the sign.
> And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.


did they also place a bicycle remount sign or do you have to remain dismounted 
for the rest of your life? How long is the dismount valid? If there is no 
remount sign my interpretation would be it is punctual.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 22:46 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a pedestrian area.


are you allowed to carry them? what about foldable bikes? monocycles? tandems? 
horses? big dogs?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Petr Holub]

 

Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

 

 

 

 

Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).

 

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At every "end 
of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed
to dismount and cross the lateral road as pedestrian


well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - in my 
opinion it is no need for a _dismount_
there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal
cycleway/footway (with the regarding legal rights above the otherwise crossing 
traffic) and have to obey the crossing
traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as cyclist

 

Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed to use a 
normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on
your bike in the Czech Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra 
for bicycle crossing, but in that case the
"end of cycleway" sign is not used. I've posted the most blatant examples of 
idiotic cycleways.

 

Petr

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

It's cycleway all the way down, under the bridge, and up the other side.
We don't get to decide whether it's a cycleway or not. That's what the 
signs are for.
If it had changed into a footpath, there would be a sign (the Dutch are 
good at that).


I agree that if there was a pedestrian sign, it would be enough to mark 
it as a footway (implies 'dismount and push').


I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed 
(they just have to be pushed).


Can anyone please explain what the problem is with keeping the tag 
bicycle=dismount?
(And yes, I do understand that many cyclists, me included, don't like it 
and often ignore it.)


But it not just a "made up" sign. It's there in real life. And we map 
what is there.


- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


I'm not suggesting the dismount sign is ignored on the map, I'm 
saying, if cycling is not allowed (i.e. cyclist should dismount and no 
longer cycle) then it should either not be marked as a cycleway or the 
access tag should be used to restrict cycles on the way.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

I'm not suggesting the dismount sign is ignored on the map, I'm saying, 
if cycling is not allowed (i.e. cyclist should dismount and no longer 
cycle) then it should either not be marked as a cycleway or the access 
tag should be used to restrict cycles on the way.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 22:36, Frank Little wrote:

Here's an example from the Netherlands:
http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/ 


It's a cycleway (mopeds also allowed). No change in highway type here.
It's cycleway all the way down.

There were accidents. The local authority decided that the best way to 
reduce the risk of accidents was ...

... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.

We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done 
that, but that doesn't change the sign.
And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there. There are 
plenty of signs I disagree with.

(Or even ignore.) But that doesn't mean we should leave them out of OSM.

Is it "legal": Well, the council placed it (though I couldn't find a 
basis for it in the local ordinance).
Could a strategically-placed policeman fine you if you ignored the 
sign? (Like most people will do).
Probably he could (there's always the catch-all in the road 
regulations), though in practice he might not.
If you cause an accident, your insurance company might want to take it 
into account.


I am not in favour of tagging "dismount" for any other reason than a 
sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation).



- Original Message - From: "fly" 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733

looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a
cycleway.  It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.


Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged:

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

or it is unofficial and

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
bicycle=designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

no need for bicycle=dismount

cu
fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

On 10/10/2013 01:13 PM, fly wrote:

On 10.10.2013 20:03, Mike N wrote:

On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:

The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
tag to exclude bicycles.

What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take
a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ?

Think the width of the footpath is much more important.

cu
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
The width of the way is not the only issue.  If the width of the way on 
the section where you are required to be dismounted from the bicycle is 
the same as the width on the section where you are allowed to ride the 
bicycle, then if only the width is tagged, the router does not have a 
way to know that the dismounted-only section will take longer to 
traverse.  If you ride the bicycle on the section where riding isn't 
allowed, you may potentially be cited by the police and/or put yourself 
in danger, as in the bridge I described with the low handrail.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

Here's an example from the Netherlands:
http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/
It's a cycleway (mopeds also allowed). No change in highway type here.
It's cycleway all the way down.

There were accidents. The local authority decided that the best way to 
reduce the risk of accidents was ...

... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.

We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, 
but that doesn't change the sign.
And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there. There are 
plenty of signs I disagree with.

(Or even ignore.) But that doesn't mean we should leave them out of OSM.

Is it "legal": Well, the council placed it (though I couldn't find a 
basis for it in the local ordinance).
Could a strategically-placed policeman fine you if you ignored the sign? 
(Like most people will do).
Probably he could (there's always the catch-all in the road 
regulations), though in practice he might not.
If you cause an accident, your insurance company might want to take it 
into account.


I am not in favour of tagging "dismount" for any other reason than a 
sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation).



- Original Message - 
From: "fly" 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to 
tag

the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733

looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a
cycleway.  It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.


Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged:

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

or it is unofficial and

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
bicycle=designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

no need for bicycle=dismount

cu
fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

So what is it about?

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 21:46, Frank Little wrote:
Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a 
pedestrian area.

No limitation on prams, wheelchairs, luggage trolleys, etc.
It's just aimed at bikes (which in a country with lots of bikes, like 
the Netherlands, is understandable).


Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about.

- Original Message - From: "Jonathan" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways




However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't 
even be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag 
needs to be extended to include a "no pushed bicycles" option.  In 
those circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage 
trolley but not push a bike?


Jonathan





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a pedestrian 
area.

No limitation on prams, wheelchairs, luggage trolleys, etc.
It's just aimed at bikes (which in a country with lots of bikes, like 
the Netherlands, is understandable).


Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways




However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't 
even be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag 
needs to be extended to include a "no pushed bicycles" option.  In 
those circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage 
trolley but not push a bike?


Jonathan





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

Nope, the only difference is a way changes from a way that can contain 
cycles to a route that can't, it's an access issue.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:18, Mike N wrote:

On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote:

>What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
>route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking
>speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to 
take

>a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ?

Think the width of the footpath is much more important.


 Nope, the width of the path is the same - the only difference is the 
side rails and the "bicyclists must dismount" sign.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

If you can't cycle on a way then it isn't a cycleway!

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:10, SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733

looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a 
cycleway.  It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

It doesn't need a hint, it should be making that decision currently on 
all routes: is it quicker to get off and push if that is allowed.


Nothing needs to change to support this other than to tag routes using 
ACCESS that a bicycle can't be pushed on.


I reiterate, bicycle=dismount is a pointless tag, it shouldn't be 
there.  If you want to keep it then we need a car=slowdown and 
car=speedup tags.


The only need I can think of where you need to signal an unusual change 
that access can't cover is a turn restriction that says cycles can't 
turn right but maybe have to use some underpass for safety reasons.  
This is already covered by existing tags and methods.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:03, Mike N wrote:

On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:

The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
tag to exclude bicycles.


What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this 
route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking 
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to 
take a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a
>> change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag
>> the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude
>> bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733
> 
> looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a
> cycleway.  It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.

Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged:

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

or it is unofficial and

highway=path
foot=yes/designated
bicycle=designated
vehicle=no
note=bicycle dismount sign

no need for bicycle=dismount

cu
fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Mike N]

On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote:

>What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
>route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking
>speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take
>a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ?

Think the width of the footpath is much more important.


 Nope, the width of the path is the same - the only difference is the 
side rails and the "bicyclists must dismount" sign.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 10.10.2013 20:03, Mike N wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
>> tag to exclude bicycles.
> 
> What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
> route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking
> speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take
> a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ?

Think the width of the footpath is much more important.

cu
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[SomeoneElse]

Jonathan wrote:
I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733

looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a 
cycleway.  It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Mike N]

On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:

The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
tag to exclude bicycles.


What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this 
route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking 
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take 
a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't even 
be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag needs to 
be extended to include a "no pushed bicycles" option.  In those 
circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage trolley but 
not push a bike?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 18:30, Frank Little wrote:
It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different 
situations are involved.


1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to 
dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike.
To tag these situations the current solution is to tag 
"bicycle=dismount".
The original question was: "is it an 'official' sign?" The answer 
seems to be, yes, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK).
We also have a similar sign in the Netherlands (although the legal 
status is not entirely clear).
Where there is a sign (and only in those situations), it makes sense 
to tag it accordingly. So there is no reason to "deprecate" the tag.
Possibly other tagging solutions need to be found where there is no 
explicit signage but there are general rules (e.g. in Italy).


2. A different situation is where a cyclist is explicitly forbidden to 
push the bike (e.g. through a pedestrian area) after dismounting.
The assumption is that a cyclist pushing a bike is to be treated as a 
pedestrian, and may normally use a sidewalk, pedestrian zone, etc.

Where that is not allowed, we need a different tag.
I don't like bicycle:dismount=no since it suggests to me that you do 
not have to dismount.
(On pragmatic grounds, I wouldn't tag this anyway because I don't 
expect routers to use highway=footway or area=pedestrian for bicycle 
routing.)




On 10.10.2013 16:28, fly wrote

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote:

Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that
would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.


The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common than
"_" but at the end it does not really matter.



"Janko Mihelić"  wrote:

I think dismount should be a key, not a value - 
bicycle_dismount=yes/no.


On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
bicycle_dismount=no

When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.

Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.


+1

cu fly




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different 
situations are involved.


1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to 
dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike.
To tag these situations the current solution is to tag 
"bicycle=dismount".
The original question was: "is it an 'official' sign?" The answer seems 
to be, yes, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK).
We also have a similar sign in the Netherlands (although the legal 
status is not entirely clear).
Where there is a sign (and only in those situations), it makes sense to 
tag it accordingly. So there is no reason to "deprecate" the tag.
Possibly other tagging solutions need to be found where there is no 
explicit signage but there are general rules (e.g. in Italy).


2. A different situation is where a cyclist is explicitly forbidden to 
push the bike (e.g. through a pedestrian area) after dismounting.
The assumption is that a cyclist pushing a bike is to be treated as a 
pedestrian, and may normally use a sidewalk, pedestrian zone, etc.

Where that is not allowed, we need a different tag.
I don't like bicycle:dismount=no since it suggests to me that you do not 
have to dismount.
(On pragmatic grounds, I wouldn't tag this anyway because I don't expect 
routers to use highway=footway or area=pedestrian for bicycle routing.)




On 10.10.2013 16:28, fly wrote

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote:
Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like 
that

would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.


The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common 
than

"_" but at the end it does not really matter.



"Janko Mihelić"  wrote:

I think dismount should be a key, not a value - 
bicycle_dismount=yes/no.


On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
bicycle_dismount=no

When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.

Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + 
bicycle_dismount=yes.


+1

cu fly




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 16:28 schrieb fly :
>
> The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common than
> "_" but at the end it does not really matter.


this as a different separator: the colon is for hierarchical
structures (a:b b is a subtag of a) and the underscore is a
substitution of a space in formalized values (or in keys), e.g.
natural=bare_rock

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount


On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that
> would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.

The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common than
"_" but at the end it does not really matter.


> "Janko Mihelić"  wrote:
> 
> I think dismount should be a key, not a value - bicycle_dismount=yes/no.
> 
> On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.
> 
> On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
> bicycle_dismount=no
> 
> When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.
> 
> Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

+1

cu fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge 
> 
> > After I posted this message, I read another message suggesting
> > bicycle:push=no, which is a better suggestion than bicycle=no.
> 
> 
> 
> I still believe that something along "foot:bicycle-pushing=no" would
> be
> better, as a cyclist who dismounted his bicycle is not a cyclist but a
> pedestrian.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Good point.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge 

> After I posted this message, I read another message suggesting
> bicycle:push=no, which is a better suggestion than bicycle=no.



I still believe that something along "foot:bicycle-pushing=no" would be
better, as a cyclist who dismounted his bicycle is not a cyclist but a
pedestrian.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge 
> 
> > I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning.
> >
> 
> 
> you can insist on this, but we are not starting to map right now, and
> given
> that "bicycle" has the longstanding meaning of "cyclist" in osm, your
> proposal would imply a change on this meaning --- a tag that is used
> 461k
> times.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

After I posted this message, I read another message suggesting bicycle:push=no, 
which is a better suggestion than bicycle=no.  Another possibility is 
bicycle:dismounted=no.  Dismount is a verb, dismounted is an adjective.  So, 
bicycle=dismount and bicycle:dismount=yes would both logically apply to the 
cyclist, meaning "you should dismount at this point", bicycle:dismount=no would 
logically apply to the cyclist, meaning "you should not dismount at this 
point", bicycle:dismounted would apply to the bicycle, meaning "dismounted 
bicycles are allowed", and bicycle:dismounted=no would apply to the bicycle, 
meaning "dismounted bicycles are not allowed".

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

Can happen where pedestrians and stopping are prohibited, but cycling is 
allowed.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 09/10/2013 14:55 John F. Eldredge wrote:

Georg Feddern  wrote:
Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty:

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow
footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Not only was the footway narrow, [...]

there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along the Dunn
Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY.

well, if it is tagged as highway=footway you already have to dismount -
otherwise it would be tagged as highway=cycleway.
So where is the need for a bicycle=dismount here?

I only see the practical need for a bicycle:dismount=no where bicycles
are even not allowed dismounted.

Georg




Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Bicycle:dismount=no is ambiguous. Many people are likely to interpret this as 
meaning "you are allowed to be mounted on a bike, but not allowed to dismount 
from a bike". I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning.

--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge 

> I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning.
>


you can insist on this, but we are not starting to map right now, and given
that "bicycle" has the longstanding meaning of "cyclist" in osm, your
proposal would imply a change on this meaning --- a tag that is used 461k
times.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Welty]

> Georg Feddern  wrote:
>
> Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty:
>
> On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the
> narrow footway of a bridge over the James River, in
> Richmond, Virginia, USA. Not only was the footway narrow,
> [...] 
>
> there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along
> the Dunn Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY.
>
>
> well, if it is tagged as highway=footway you already have to dismount - 
> otherwise it would be tagged as highway=cycleway.
> So where is the need for a bicycle=dismount here?
>
you're making an assumption about tagging of ways that may not apply
generally.
in some parts of the US, we have true multi-use paths where pedestrians and
cyclists are considered equal users. those are frequently tagged
highway=path
with access tags to denote the types of uses that are permitted.

for the two bridges i mentioned in the Albany NY area, both are connected to
the multi-use path network along the river and in OSM they're currently
tagged

   highway=path/foot=yes/bicycle=dismount

which accurately reflects the signage and legal usage.

if we create tagging schemes where you need to know the whole footway
= dismounted cyclist scheme, then you will end up with mistagging by those
who aren't aware of the distinction. we are better off, i think, if the
tagging
maps in an obvious way to the signs we see.

richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

Georg Feddern  wrote:
> Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty:
> > On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> >> I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow
> >> footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia,
> USA.
> >> Not only was the footway narrow, [...]
> > there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along the Dunn
> > Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY.
> 
> well, if it is tagged as highway=footway you already have to dismount
> - 
> otherwise it would be tagged as highway=cycleway.
> So where is the need for a bicycle=dismount here?
> 
> I only see the practical need for a bicycle:dismount=no where bicycles
> 
> are even not allowed dismounted.
> 
> Georg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Bicycle:dismount=no is ambiguous.  Many people are likely to interpret this as 
meaning "you are allowed to be mounted on a bike, but not allowed to dismount 
from a bike".  I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/9 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 

> f bicycle=* is currently widely used to express access rights for
> cycling, then I'd suggest we leave it like that, as it does the job
> pretty well.
>


+1



> Rather than trying to add additional values to this key
> to capture access rigths for pushed/wheeled bicycles (e.g.
> bicycle=no_and_not_even_pushed), I'd suggest that we define an
> additional key:
>


+1



> Something along the lines of bicycle:pushed=*.
> bicycle=* then tells you if you can ride a bike (as it does
> currently), while bicycle:pushed=* tells you if you can push/wheel it.
>


not sure if this is a good key, as someone pushing a bicycle is not a
cyclist, so not being allowed to push a bike is not a restriction for
cyclists but for pedestrians.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 7 October 2013 17:09, fly  wrote:
> I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.
>
> At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
> existence of some.

I don't think the issue here is really whether there is a need within
instances of "no cycling" to distinguish between "no bicycles at all"
and "bicycles can be pushed". It seems from the posts below that there
are plenty of situations where both cases apply, and it's clearly
important information to know if you're planning cycling routes. We
therefore do need a way to distinguish between the two cases.

The big problem that I see is (especially in areas where the default
position is "no cycling" = "bikes can be pushed") that people have
used bicycle=no on ways where cycling is banned but it's fine to push
a bike. In other words the bicycle=* key has been used to express
access rights for cycling, not for bicycles. As a result (at least on
some areas) data users are forced to interpret bicycle=no as "no
cycling, but bikes can be pushed" as a best guess at what the mapper
meant. Thus bicycle=dismount actually add no further information,
except that you can be more certain that pushing bike is allowed.

If bicycle=* is currently widely used to express access rights for
cycling, then I'd suggest we leave it like that, as it does the job
pretty well. Rather than trying to add additional values to this key
to capture access rigths for pushed/wheeled bicycles (e.g.
bicycle=no_and_not_even_pushed), I'd suggest that we define an
additional key: Something along the lines of bicycle:pushed=*.
bicycle=* then tells you if you can ride a bike (as it does
currently), while bicycle:pushed=* tells you if you can push/wheel it.

Any cases of bicycle=dismount could be easily converted to bicycle=no,
bicycle:pushed=yes. The only issue is cases of bicycle=no which have
been used to mean "no cycling and no pushing either". Perhaps it will
be necessary to look at national defaults to handle this (i.e. what
value of bicycle:pushed should be assumed if bicycle=no and there's no
bicycle:pushed=* tag present).

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Georg Feddern]

Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:






Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that
bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).


This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At 
every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and 
cross the lateral road as pedestrian


well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - in 
my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding 
legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey the 
crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as cyclist.


Georg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Georg Feddern]

Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty:

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow
footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Not only was the footway narrow, [...]

there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along the Dunn
Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY.


well, if it is tagged as highway=footway you already have to dismount - 
otherwise it would be tagged as highway=cycleway.

So where is the need for a bicycle=dismount here?

I only see the practical need for a bicycle:dismount=no where bicycles 
are even not allowed dismounted.


Georg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frankl2009]

The Dutch example is based on a local (municipal) ordinance which regulates 
whether you are allowed to walk your bicycle in this pedestrian zone. So, it is 
a "real" regulation (but it is not an example of a "bicycle dismount" 
regulation). 

Bicycles are not allowed at all, so a "bicycle=no" tag could cover that 
situation, but since it is currently tagged  "highway=pedestrian" that 
shouldn't be necessary. You won't be routed along that street and you can see 
if you get there that you are not allowed to walk the bike through it (though 
some people do, Martin, don't despair!).

But this kind of situation is not covered by the tag bicycle=dismount: that's 
for when you can continue on a route, but you have to get off the bike and walk 
it through. In the Netherlands, you will come across temporary signs like that 
at road works (although their use in those cases is currently deprecated and 
probably also has no legal force) and there are a limited number of permanent 
"dismount" signs on cycleways. It is not really clear whether such signs have 
any legal force either. 

We discussed this on the Dutch forum some time back and I think the consensus 
was only to tag "bicycle=dismount" where there is an actual sign (and not at 
every set of steps with a bicycle ramp, which some mappers were doing). Since 
the signs are really present, I can't see why we would not tag accordingly. I 
don't see it as a matter of choice. We tag what's there.

>On 8 October 2013 20:15 Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>
>>On 8 October 2013 19:46, Ole Nielsen wrote:
>>
>>Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone photo 
>>made in poor lighting).
>>
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg
>>
>> It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring along bicycles by hand"
>>
>Thanks. I also found the relevant regulation: 
> http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html
>
>This is not a traffic regulation, but a city ordinance meant to prevent 
>nuisance.
>
>Could it be that the German signs are also regulated in local ordinances (I 
>suppose that would be a Polizeiverordnung)?
>
>--Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Kytömaa Lauri]

>Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official
>and not made up by some people ?

Not my country, but in the UK it's listed here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made


Some countries have a blanket allowance for using a text only sign when no 
suitable sign exists, not just as an additional sign limiting the effect of the 
main sign, but on their own. From what I read, at least here in Finland a 
cyclist not obeying any traffic sign could get a fixed 20 euro ticket. (In 
practice, from what I've seen and heard, they only bother to fine those driving 
on sidewalks, or past a red light - unless something bad happens, that is.)

-- 
alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

Stefan Tiran  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> John F. Eldredge wrote:
> > If you really meant "it is in no way acceptable to require people to
> dismount 
> > their bikes",
> 
> Indeed this is what I meant. Thanks for pointing out this ambiguity!
> 
> > what about the real-life situation I described earlier, a narrow 
> > footway along one side of a bridge, with a railing only slightly
> above waist 
> > level for a pedestrian? A mounted cyclist would have a high enough
> center of 
> > gravity that, should they collide with the railing, they would
> likely fall off 
> > of the bridge.
> 
> I do not fully understand your example of the bridge either. Are there
> any other roads on the bridge or is it just a pedestrian bridge. If
> there are other roads: are bicycles explicitly banned from using the
> road or is it just that the drivers of some other vehicle do not like
> them to use the road?
> 
> But in order to become on topic again: The reason why I wrote this
> post
> was to point out, that this is something, a lot of people have very
> strong feelings about and therefore such tags would lead to edit wars
> in
> the database.
> 
> Yours,
> Stefan
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

There are two lanes for automobile traffic, and a walkway on one side, 
separated from the automobile traffic by a barrier.  The river is wide enough 
that it would take a bicyclist two or three minutes to ride across.  There are 
two lanes for motor vehicle use, narrow enough that, if two cars were to try to 
pass each other and simultaneously pass a bicycle riding in the roadway, they 
would probably strike each other or the cyclist.  So, bicycles are not allowed 
to use the roadway. The walkway is only about 1.5 meters wide, and has a 
handrail on the outer side only about one meter high.  This is high enough to 
protect a pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist who lost his or her balance and 
fell against the handrail would likely fall off of the bridge.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Stefan Tiran]

Hi,

John F. Eldredge wrote:
> If you really meant "it is in no way acceptable to require people to dismount 
> their bikes",

Indeed this is what I meant. Thanks for pointing out this ambiguity!

> what about the real-life situation I described earlier, a narrow 
> footway along one side of a bridge, with a railing only slightly above waist 
> level for a pedestrian? A mounted cyclist would have a high enough center of 
> gravity that, should they collide with the railing, they would likely fall 
> off 
> of the bridge.

I do not fully understand your example of the bridge either. Are there
any other roads on the bridge or is it just a pedestrian bridge. If
there are other roads: are bicycles explicitly banned from using the
road or is it just that the drivers of some other vehicle do not like
them to use the road?

But in order to become on topic again: The reason why I wrote this post
was to point out, that this is something, a lot of people have very
strong feelings about and therefore such tags would lead to edit wars in
the database.

Yours,
Stefan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/8 Matthijs Melissen 

> No, the legal basis is a local regulation called Algemene Plaatselijke
> Verordening (General local ordinance):
>
> http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html
>


the liberal times of the Netherlands are only conserved in sweet memories
it seems...

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 8 October 2013 20:11, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen 
>
>> Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone
>> photo made in poor lighting).
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg
>>
>> It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring along bicycles by hand"
>>
>
>
> +1, that's my point: it is private land and they can invent their rules...
>

No, the legal basis is a local regulation called Algemene Plaatselijke
Verordening (General local ordinance):
http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html

I think it is similar to a Polizeiverordnung in Germany.

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Volker Schmidt]

> Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
> is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
> Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
> make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
> http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
> (and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).
>

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At every
"end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and cross the
lateral road as pedestrian


Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 8 October 2013 19:46, Ole Nielsen  wrote:

> Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone
> photo made in poor lighting).
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg
>
> It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring along bicycles by hand"


Thanks. I also found the relevant regulation:
http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html

This is not a traffic regulation, but a city ordinance meant to prevent
nuisance.

Could it be that the German signs are also regulated in local ordinances (I
suppose that would be a Polizeiverordnung)?

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen 

> Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone
> photo made in poor lighting).
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg
>
> It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring along bicycles by hand"
>


+1, that's my point: it is private land and they can invent their rules...

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/8 fly 

> Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official
> and not made up by some people ?
>


you are only refering to public roads, but private owners could impose
whatever rules they like, e.g. on private squares, private shopping malls
and adjacent areas, etc., so only because there is not a law does not imply
necessarily that the tag is useless ;-). Also in Germany I have come upon
these private areas and was forced to dismount (at 4 in the night) by a
private guard - and there was nobody around besides him an me, who would
have been disturbed. At that time there was no sign there btw.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Ole Nielsen]

On 08/10/2013 02:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

 > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between
bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly
signed with no bicycle pushing.

I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out
used? Do you have a picture by any chance?


Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone 
photo made in poor lighting).


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg

It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring along bicycles by hand"

Ole

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Tod Fitch]

Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that would 
be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.

Tod
-- 
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.

"Janko Mihelić"  wrote:
>I think dismount should be a key, not a value -
>bicycle_dismount=yes/no.
>
>On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.
>
>On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
>bicycle_dismount=no
>
>When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.
>
>Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.
>
>Janko
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Janko Mihelić]

I think dismount should be a key, not a value - bicycle_dismount=yes/no.

On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
bicycle_dismount=no

When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.

Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Andre Engels]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Ole Nielsen  wrote:

>
> At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and
> bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no
> bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus
> you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.
>
> In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already
> mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side
> intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps as
> routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact.


I don't think this would be a good idea. Places where you aren't allowed to
push your biycle are rare, places where you may push them but may not cycle
much more common. Given that they now both have bicycle=no, it would be
much more logical to have something special for "you may not even walk with
your bicycle here" than for "you may walk your bicycle but not cycle".

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging