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
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
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
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
(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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
(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
: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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:
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).
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
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,
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
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
