Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
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
Am 20/ott/2013 um 22:22 schrieb Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com: 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
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 bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
2013/10/19 Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl 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
(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 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/14 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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
Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: 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
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
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
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
2013/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: 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
2013/10/16 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com 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
2013/10/16 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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 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 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
2013/10/16 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 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
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
SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 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 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
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
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stefan Tiran stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at 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
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 stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at 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
2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at 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
On 14 October 2013 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/14 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
2013/10/14 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/14 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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
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
Am 10/ott/2013 um 22:46 schrieb Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl: 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
Am 10/ott/2013 um 23:36 schrieb Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl: 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
Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl: 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
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
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, 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 bigfatfro...@gmail.com 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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect this. Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/** Access-Restrictionshttp://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:bicyclehttp://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 frank...@xs4all.nl: 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/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
2013/10/11 Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com 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
2013/10/11 Jonathan 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. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
2013/10/11 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk 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
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 p...@trigpoint.me.uk 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
On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
2013/10/11 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com (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
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
Am 11/ott/2013 um 13:23 schrieb Mike N nice...@att.net: 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
+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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
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 nice...@att.net To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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
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
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:53 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
2013/10/11 Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl 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
Am 11.10.2013 12:26, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/10/11 Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com 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
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
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 nice...@att.net To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
+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 jan...@gmail.com 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
Am 10/ott/2013 um 16:28 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: 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
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 jan...@gmail.com 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
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 jan...@gmail.com 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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 bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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 bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 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
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
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
On 7 October 2013 17:09, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
2013/10/9 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com 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
Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de 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
Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de 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
2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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
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 o...@bavarianmallet.de 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
2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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
Hi, fly wrote: Hey 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. Every time I see such a sign, I get very angry about the fucking moron, who was responsible for this bullshit. Of course, it is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes. Bicycles are not toys, they are vehicles of their own right. That's way I also don't think it is acceptable for a routing service to suggest a route for a bicycle where one can't use it the way it is supposed to be. Yours, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
In my part of Italy - I don't know whether this is correct for the entire country - it is *normal *on cycleways that run parallel to roads that at every point where there is a lateral road, there is a *pedestrian* crossing across the lateral road where the cyclists are requested by law to dismount. Obviously we are in Italy, and no cyclist does dismount. But I am now locally inserting bicycle=dismount on all pedestrian crossings of this type. We also have crossings where cyclists can cross on their bikes, but their number is much smaller. On 7 October 2013 22:37, Stefan Tiran stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.atwrote: Hi, fly wrote: Hey 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. Every time I see such a sign, I get very angry about the fucking moron, who was responsible for this bullshit. Of course, it is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes. Bicycles are not toys, they are vehicles of their own right. That's way I also don't think it is acceptable for a routing service to suggest a route for a bicycle where one can't use it the way it is supposed to be. 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
2013/10/8 Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de Yes it does. If there is only a footway sign, cyclists are allowed to use the road. If there is a sign telling to dismount the bike, cyclists must use the pedestrian way, pushing their bike. Given that you seem to refer to the situation in Germany, can you give some reference to back up this view? AFAIK Radfahrer absteigen is not a sign described in the StVO., nor is it contained in the Bußgeldkatalog (schedule of fines), see e.g. here: (in German) http://de.fahrrad.wikia.com/wiki/Radfahrer_absteigen and here: www.fahrrad-forum.info/details/items/60.html?file=tl_files/Fahrrad-Forum/vortraege/pdf/Verkehrsrecht_fuer_Radfahrer_-_Roland_Huhn.pdfand here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bkatv_2013/BJNR049800013.html The second document cites a situation like the one you describe and indicates that you can use the road if there is a bicycle dismount on the cycleway / pedestrian way. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:09 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey 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 ? In Australia, sometimes you see the sign cyclists dismount. Usually, it's the rather clueless designation of some council worker who is trying to avoid a lawsuit in places like a bike path crossing a train track, or a wooden boardwalk. (Effectively, it means caution.) I'd be inclined to map it, indicating this is what the sign said. As a routing engine, I'd probably treat it as a hint that a bike will be going slower than normal, but still faster than walking. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
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 ? 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). Petr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Stefan Tiran stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at wrote: Hi, fly wrote: Hey 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. Every time I see such a sign, I get very angry about the fucking moron, who was responsible for this bullshit. Of course, it is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes. Bicycles are not toys, they are vehicles of their own right. That's way I also don't think it is acceptable for a routing service to suggest a route for a bicycle where one can't use it the way it is supposed to be. Yours, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes means that people would not be allowed to dismount. You would have a situation where people were required to ride, not walk. What if the bicycle had a flat tire, or was otherwise damaged? If you really meant it is in no way acceptable to require people to dismount their bikes, 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. -- 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
On 07.10.2013 22:37, Stefan Tiran wrote: Hi, fly wrote: Hey 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. Every time I see such a sign, I get very angry about the fucking moron, who was responsible for this bullshit. Of course, it is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes. Bicycles are not toys, they are vehicles of their own right. That's way I also don't think it is acceptable for a routing service to suggest a route for a bicycle where one can't use it the way it is supposed to be. +1 but then we either should complete ignore the sign or tag bicycle=no as it is no bicycle way. Dangerous places should get their own tag (obstical/hazard). As for the situation in Italy, I would simply tag the crossing way with: highway=path foot=designated vehicle=no In all situation we do not need bicycle=dismount. Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official and not made up by some people ? cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/8/13 10:32 AM, fly wrote: In all situation we do not need bicycle=dismount. Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official and not made up by some people ? well, i can't say official for sure, but the dismount signs posted on the various Hudson River crossings originate from the New York State Department of Transportation, the agency that has jurisdiction over the bridges in question. that strikes me as being somewhat official. 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
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl 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
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
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 jan...@gmail.com 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
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
2013/10/8 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl 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.jpghttp://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
On 8 October 2013 19:46, Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl 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.jpghttp://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
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
On 8 October 2013 20:11, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl 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.jpghttp://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
2013/10/8 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl 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
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
Stefan Tiran stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at 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
