The proposal would benefit from additional attention to lite tagging, for
those not interested in the full level of detail.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
+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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
