Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-21 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



21 Oct 2020, 22:00 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> :
>>
 This recent wiki change by  Emvee 
   is in my view not 
 helpful,  or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread  
 tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different  
 question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is  supposed 
 to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

>>>
>>> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, 
>>> see >>> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>>>
>>>
>> No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128
>>
>> OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.
>>
>> Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic,unsupported 
>> and having a better alternative.
>>
>
> Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is  problematic 
> namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not  add that context 
> but that is something I can do. 
>
>
> Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate  osm way 
> with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a  good idea.
>
>
>>>
>>> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore  bicycle=no 
>>> in combination with highway=crossing means that it  is more or less 
>>> useless as routers are they main data  consumers while at the same 
>>> time crossing data is far from  being complete.
>>>
>>>
>> Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this doesnot make 
>> it useless.
>>
> If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future Icall 
> it useless.
>> And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. Asobvious from 
>> this discussion meaning
>> of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits onthis page
>>
>
> I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on  the Talk 
> page I have no problem with reverting for now but think  it should be 
> reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was  added.
>
>
Why?
>
> Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did  point 
> out above.
>
>
>>>
>>> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and  it 
>>> does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian  issue 
>>> can be deduced from the connecting ways.
>>>
>>>
>> Not in cases where 
>> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists areobligated to 
>> dismount
>> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossingroad 
>> where cyclists
>> are obligated to dismount
>>
> Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osmway. 
> A bit more effort but more precise.
>
Yes. But the entire thread was started due
to wiki edit redefining already tagged data.

I am open to describing way splitting as
preferable, but not to redefining existing tagging.
>  
>
>>
>> (3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cyclewayon both 
>> sides 
>> (tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both) 
>> (or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined byseparately 
>> mapped 
>> cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
>> cyclists must dismount)
>>
>
> There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for  routing 
> purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way  the road. 
>
>
But given road may be obstacle to be crossed
with user desiring to get to other side
>
> So these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing  context while 
> routers do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on  a node.
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-21 Thread Emvee via Tagging

On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:


This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view
not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a
wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a
different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is
supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128


OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported
and having a better alternative.


Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is problematic
namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not add that context
but that is something I can do.

Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate osm way
with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a good idea.


Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no
in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make
it useless.

If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from
this discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page


I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on the Talk
page I have no problem with reverting for now but think it should be
reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was added.

Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did point
out above.


My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it
does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue
can be deduced from the connecting ways.

Not in cases where
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to
dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where
cyclists
are obligated to dismount

Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.

(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both
sides
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately
mapped
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)


There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for routing
purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way the road. So
these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing context while routers
do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on a node.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Emvee via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
> > heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount
>
> I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
> some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
> used at all.



it depends on the point of view. Of all highway=crossing nodes, only 3,65%
have a bicycle=* tag, but these are 163 331 objects.
Most of them are bicycle=yes tags, only 10 462 are bicycle=no and 8 949 are
bicycle=dismount

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing#combinations


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



19 paź 2020, 22:43 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
 This  recent wiki change by  Emvee 
   is in my view not 
 helpful,  or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread  
 tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different  
 question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is  supposed 
 to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

>>>
>>> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, 
>>> see >>> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>>>
>>>
>>> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore  bicycle=no 
>>> in combination with highway=crossing means that it  is more or less 
>>> useless as routers are they main data  consumers while at the same 
>>> time crossing data is far from  being complete.
>>>
>>>
>>> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and  it 
>>> does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian  issue 
>>> can be deduced from the connecting ways.
>>>
>>>
>> We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped  with 
>> tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped  ways.
>>  Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing  way.
>>  Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.
>>  
>>  How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now? 
>>
>
> Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to  
> retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for  routing 
> while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing  nodes _without_ 
> a crossing way routers will not > treat>  them different if there is  
> bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever
>
>

How specific data consumers process
OSM data does not really change 
meaning of OSM data.

Especially if it is "that part is currently
not supported"
>
> If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way  will 
> have the correct access rights.
>
>
And if mapper wants to map it right now
this tagging is method to do that.

Note that in some regions people 
decided to map sidewalks with 
sidewalk tag not with separate ways
>
> Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere  proposed, a 
> new tag should be used instead.
>
>
I also see no need for a new tag :)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Emvee via Tagging



This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question,
but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe
the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
deduced from the connecting ways.


We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped
with tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?


Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to
retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for routing
while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing nodes _without_
a crossing way routers will not treat them different if there is
bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever

If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way will
have the correct access rights.

Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere proposed, a
new tag should be used instead.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Emvee via Tagging

On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount


I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
used at all. Most people understand after some explanation how routers
are interpreting things and see the problem. An educated guess is that
we are talking about 3000 cases that are problematic.


I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated
crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of
road that contains this tagging, not to speak of the tens of warnings
of deprecated tags in bus lines, which I even don't know how to fix,
that turn up everytime I my download area touches a bus line.

People differ, I like data consistency and try to fix problems reported
and see it as a good way to learn more about openstreetmap.

I also don't agree with " not worth the benefit of informing cyclists
whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive on the crossing.". To
the contrary, I would like the bicycle routers to inform the cuyclist
about the difference nd send them preferably across bicycle-friendly
crossings.
Good bicycle navigation is an important issue, in the context of bike
sharing, and for people who trvel with their folding bikes.


First observation is that for 95% of the cases the access rights of the
connection ways suffice, so it can be see as pointless tagging. For the
remaining 5% of the cases, things can be fixed by mapping the actual
length of the crossing as separate osm way with the right access rights.
That way the bicycle routes can make an even better estimate on how long
the crossing takes.



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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Emvee via Tagging

On 18/10/2020 10:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the
crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node
(no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from
the crossing ways.


This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using
the crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first
mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are
nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing
foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not
visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at
that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at
least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle
crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also
traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the stop
lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map crossings and
basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often added later.
To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging on a
crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.


But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call
it a solitary crossings?

What you mean by "solitary crossing"?

I have been working on code to detect types of crossing, so here you go.

A node marked with highway=crossing that is part of:

  *  one osm way that is not highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where the node is not the end of start of the osm way
   * two osm ways that are both highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where for both osm ways the node is either the end or
start of the osm way

(Did leave out oneway osm ways)

Anythings else is not a solitary crossing.
Do you have a better name?


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



19 paź 2020, 10:27 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can 
>> map cemeteries or parks
>> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good 
>> aerial imagery available)
>>
>
>
> my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the 
> benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive 
> on the crossing.
>
"not worth benefit" 

As a cyclist - this is a critically important info.

Dismounting on every crossing is
extremely annoying.

Car equivalent would be stopping car, leaving it and entering again - even if 
traffic light is green!___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Volker Schmidt
Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount
I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated
crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of road
that contains this tagging, not to speak of the tens of warnings of
deprecated tags in bus lines, which I even don't know how to fix, that turn
up everytime I my download area touches a bus line.

I also don't agree with " not worth the benefit of informing cyclists
whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive on the crossing.". To the
contrary, I would like the bicycle routers to inform the cuyclist about the
difference nd send them preferably across bicycle-friendly crossings.
Good bicycle navigation is an important issue, in the context of bike
sharing, and for people who trvel with their folding bikes.

Volker


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 10:29, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you
> can map cemeteries or parks
> > or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good
> aerial imagery available)
>
>
> my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the
> benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can
> drive on the crossing.
>
> I would suggest sth like crossing:bicycle=yes/no
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map 
> cemeteries or parks
> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good 
> aerial imagery available)


my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the 
benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive 
on the crossing.

I would suggest sth like crossing:bicycle=yes/no

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 18, 2020, 01:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and 
>> bicycle=no on crossing
>> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.
>>
>
>
> Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would be agreeing 
> that this representation bears some problems and that we suggest a less error 
> prone alternative is chosen.
>
I agree that splitting road is preferable.

Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map 
cemeteries or parks
or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good aerial 
imagery available)

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to  
> pedestrian crossings
>
 Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with
 pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a
 pedestrians?

 Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on
 crossing with road oneis supposed to walk carrying yourvehicle?

 Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?

>>>
>>> Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a  
>>> pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way  
>>> cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding  bicycle=no 
>>> to the crossing node?
>>>
>>>
>> I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing ispointless on 
>> footways with bicycle=no or
>> where bicycle=no is implied
>>
>> It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed oncycleway/footway 
>> crossing road and are obligated to
>> dismount if crossing road at that point
>>
>
> It would be good if all crossings that require this special  handling can 
> be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing  but that is not 
> possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of  pointless tagging. 
>
>
It is possible  to narrow them to find just ones attached to way with 
highway=cycleway or footways
with bicycle=yes/bicycle=designated (using overpass API)

> For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at  the 
> point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the  other side of 
> the road so tagging that part of the way separately  is more precise.
>
>
>
>
>> (and yes, in most cases, though not all,it can be retagged as access 
>> tagging on way)
>>
>
>
>
>
> Can you give an example?
>
>
cycleway:both=lane road with crossing for pedestrians only (I am giving this 
example to you for 
a third time)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at  09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> 
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Generally, I would propose to only tagcrossing =* on 
>>> the crossing node, but refrain fromaccess like tags on 
>>> this node (no bicycle or foottags). The access should 
>>> be derived from thecrossing ways.
>>>
>>
>> This statement is only correct if there are crossing  ways using 
>> the crossing node.
>> However, in practical terms it happens very often that  in a 
>> first mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle  crossings, as 
>> they are nicely visible on aerial imaging,  ar mapped, but not 
>> the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways,  mainly because the 
>> details are not visible on aerial  imagery or the mapper is not 
>> interested, at that stage, in  foot/cycling details. And the 
>> distinction, at least in  Italy, between foot-only and combined 
>> foot-cycle crossing  are well visable on satellite imagery. Also 
>>  traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the
>>   stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map  
>> crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is  then 
>> often added later. To me it comes natural not to  remove the 
>> existing tagging on a crossing node when I add  a crossing  way 
>> later.
>>
>
> But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call  it a 
> solitary crossings?
>
>
What you mean by "solitary crossing"?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Emvee via Tagging

On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing
node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle
or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways.


This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the
crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first
mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are
nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing
foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not visible on
aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at that stage, in
foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at least in Italy, between
foot-only and combined foot-cycle crossing are well visable on
satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are often clearly visible
because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map
crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often
added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging
on a crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.


But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a
solitary crossings?

When in a later stage the crossing way is added this information is not
needed and in the first stage it does not add value to routers.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Emvee via Tagging



Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to
pedestrian crossings

Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians
and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing
with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?


Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a
pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way
cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no
to the crossing node?

I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on
footways with bicycle=no or
where bicycle=no is implied

It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway
crossing road and are obligated to
dismount if crossing road at that point


It would be good if all crossings that require this special handling can
be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing but that is not
possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of pointless tagging.

For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at the
point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the other side of
the road so tagging that part of the way separately is more precise.


(and yes, in most cases, though not all, it can be retagged as access
tagging on way)


Can you give an example?



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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 07:49, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but 
>> refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The 
>> access should be derived from the crossing ways.
> 
> 
> This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the crossing 
> node.


note that I wrote “access_like” tags, if adding more information to a crossing 
node is desired, an alternative like bicycle_crossing=yes could be used.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node,
> but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags).
> The access should be derived from the crossing ways.
>

This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the
crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first mapping
of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are nicely visible on
aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways,
mainly because the details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper
is not interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the
distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle
crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are
often clearly visible because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round
it is easy to map crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is
then often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing
tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no 
> on crossing
> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.


Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would be agreeing that 
this representation bears some problems and that we suggest a less error prone 
alternative is chosen.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 17, 2020, 00:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Not in cases where 
>> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to 
>> dismount
>> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where 
>> cyclists
>> are obligated to dismount
>>
>
>
> in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only 
> cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with  bicycle=dismount?
>
Yes, in this cases cycleway is interrupted. And yes, splitting cycleway and 
mapping short section
of crossing itself as footway is possible tagging method. Maybe superior.

Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no 
on crossing
nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Not in cases where 
> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where 
> cyclists
> are obligated to dismount


in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only 
cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with  bicycle=dismount?


Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>> This  recent wiki change by >> Emvee 
>> >>  is in my view not 
>> helpful, or  even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread 
>> tagging  practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but 
>> it's  established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the  
>> establsihed methods of tagging)
>>
>
> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, see > 
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>
>
No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128

OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported and having 
a better alternative.


>
> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no  in 
> combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less  useless 
> as routers are they main data consumers while at the same  time crossing 
> data is far from being complete.
>
>
Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make it 
useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from this 
discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page

>
> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it  does not 
> add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue  can be deduced 
> from the connecting ways.
>
>
Not in cases where 
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where cyclists
are obligated to dismount
(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both sides 
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both) 
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately mapped 
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 00:00, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the 
> signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction.


at this point there is no shared way anymore, just nearby it is shared, because 
bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle no, it means pedestrians only.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 15, 2020, 22:30 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>>> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to  pedestrian 
>>> crossings
>>>
>> Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together withpedestrians and 
>> cross road using crossing shared with apedestrians?
>>
>> Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but oncrossing 
>> with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
>> vehicle?
>>
>> Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?
>>
>
> Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a  pedestrian way 
> crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way  cyclists are not allowed so 
> what is the use of adding bicycle=no  to the crossing node?
>
>
I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on footways 
with bicycle=no or
where bicycle=no is implied

It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway crossing road 
and are obligated to
dismount if crossing road at that point. (and yes, in most cases, though not 
all, it can be retagged as
access tagging on way)

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread OSM


Am 15.10.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Emvee via Tagging:

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but
it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see 
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time
crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
deduced from the connecting ways.



We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped with
tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?


--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:46 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way.
>
>
>
> I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross
> the road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment
> between the kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes
> (if several carriageways are present).
>

For the specific way that Volker was discussing,  the situation was a
stand-alone shared-use foot/cycleway crossing a tertiary highway. Single
carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the
signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction. No kerbs anywhere.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Emvee via Tagging



Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian
crossings

Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and
cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with
road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?


Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way
crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so
what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node?


, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because
neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall
it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for
the road users).


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Emvee via Tagging



Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to
mean?
(I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I
guessed correctly)


In node context means that the router only looks at the data belong to
the node to decide what costs to add.

See also the end of
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf
under the comment:

---context:node # following code refers to node tags


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Emvee via Tagging

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but
it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless
as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing
data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not
add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced
from the connecting ways.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



15 paź 2020, 09:42 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings
>
Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk 
together with pedestrians and cross road 
using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are
allowed but on crossing with road one
is supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=no
on crossings?
(All happen sometimes with cyclists)
>
> , IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them 
> can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very 
> bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a 
> crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the 
road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the 
kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several 
carriageways are present).

The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki 
fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.

The idea to use crossing=* as a on ways stems from user ULamm 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing=revision=1077856=1068935

And became successively popular:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#way/highway/crossing/crossing/


The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the 
discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing=1093129#Node_or_line

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but 
refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The 
access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing 
ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive 
access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to 
pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, 
because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it 
could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging 
> wrote:
>

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option on
> the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October
> 2020by user Emvee  by
> addng the diagram and its description.
> If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a
> longish explanation.
> (I also moved the two stops away from the end nodes of the ways as the tag
> direction=forward|backward is better not placed on a node that connects two
> ways )
>

Both of those are better, thanks!

The routers that I use for testing seem to be aware of crossings without
crossing nodes, so I too often forget to tag them.

Having the STOP signs tagged as I did works, since 'direction=forward'
means 'when approaching this node on the forward direction of any
connecting way', but your method is more robust against inadvertently
reversing one way and not the other.

>
> This recent wiki change by Emvee
>  is in my view not
> helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging
> practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's
> established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed
> methods of tagging)
>

I'm posting from a smartphone, so I'm not in a good position to review the
change log. I'll let you and Emvee sort it out.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging 
wrote:

> On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>
> I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that
> came to mind for me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508 is a
> street view of the crossing in question.
>
> That is a perfect solution that is even better then it would be as mapping
> the crossing node because now the router can make a good estimate based on
> the length on what travel time it takes, that is not possible with a node.
>

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option on the
highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by
user Emvee  by addng the
diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a
longish explanation.
(I also moved the two stops away from the end nodes of the ways as the tag
direction=forward|backward is better not placed on a node that connects two
ways )

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not helpful,
or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice
(if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established
tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of
tagging)

Volker
(Italy)


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Emvee via Tagging

On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM mailto:o...@bavarianmallet.de>> wrote:


How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at
highway=
without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?


I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138
 is the first example
that came to mind for me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508
 is a street view of
the crossing in question.

That is a perfect solution that is even better then it would be as
mapping the crossing node because now the router can make a good
estimate based on the length on what travel time it takes, that is not
possible with a node.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging


>> In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding
>> Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node context.
>>
I was looking for where this first appeared and I failed (maybe it was quoted 
from start),
but this claim is untrue

see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265#issuecomment-687709614
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265#issuecomment-688272138 for start

Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to mean?
(I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I guessed 
correctly)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM  wrote:

>
> How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=
> without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
> tagging by tags on highway" mapping?
>

I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that came
to mind for me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508 is a street
view of the crossing in question.

Don't excoriate me for the `highway=path`. That's what the mappers around
here do for a shared-foot-and-cycleway. I tried once, after a scolding
here, retagging it as `highway=cycleway foot=designated shared=yes`. Other
locals reverted.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread OSM

Am 10.10.2020 um 20:16 schrieb Emvee:



Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node
means it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate
penalty as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the
node. I know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Really just by bicycle=no on a node?
It does not check for barrier=* first?
I think that would be a bad idea.


The check is just on bicycle=, see the end of
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf 



In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding
Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node 
context.



Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is
used in combination with highway=crossing.

At least I think so.

The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes
the case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road
while cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"

I think so. The main tag ist highway=crossing.


I see nothing like this mentioned on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.

Do you know any other combination a tag with an access tag on a node
that means something else depending on from which way you enter it and
leave it?

I think you suggest ("It does not check for barrier=* first?") to have a
bicycle router ignore bicycle=* on nodes except in combination with
barrier=*. That would mean one could just remove bicycle=* as it is
largely useless, see my response on "other data consumers" elsewhere in
this thread.


I see this as common practice (for whom this crossing is meant).


An educated guess is that there are 3000 crossings mapped incorrectly
with bicycle=no of the 4.5 million crossings mapped, that is 0.07%. Much
less of a problem than other problems.


by giving the right access rights on the ways connecting to the node
all possible access scenarios can be covered.

That can be a solution for crossings.


It is a "solution" that makes bicycle=no on highway is crossing 
unnecessary.




How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway= 
without a crossing highway= because of "sideway 
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?


Sorry:
Why does my email program send the saving draft while I am still writing 
... does matter only to osm lists ... without asking for the outgoing 
password - heaven!


--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-10 Thread Emvee via Tagging



I agree that splitting way and having short section as footway is also
correct tagging and
making data processing easier for router.


Normally splitting is not needed but yes, for uncommon/strange
situations the part of the way that is actually crossing the way can be
tagged with the needed access tags.

It not only makes it easier, brouter does currently does not support
evaluating access on a node in the context of the incoming and outgoing
way. I think that holds for other routers using openstreetmap data.


Though harder for other data consumers, for example detecting
of places where bicycle crossing should be created would be
significantly harder.


Good to think about data consumers!

The largest consumers of this data by far are routers. I do not see any
time soon and likely never other use as the majority of crossing is
still not mapped with highway=crossing/crossing=* and even the crossing
mapped such very few have bicycle=*

So make the life of routers hard/impossible while optimizing for some
future, imaginary data use?


But many highway=crossing bicycle=no exists and OSM Wiki should
document that also this
tagging scheme is used and what is its meaning as used by mappers.


Yes, it exists (although marginally) but by documenting it is implicitly
recommended and in this case it was explicitly recommended.

Or ... will somebody start documenting that routing a pedestrian/bicycle
route over a way that is not accessible is a good idea? (60.000
problems, see http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=3240)


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 7, 2020, 23:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
> The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the case 
> that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, it 
> does not affect legality of cycling on the road"
>
> I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated in 
> node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and outgoing way)
>
I agree that splitting way and having short section as footway is also correct 
tagging and 
making data processing easier for router.

Though harder for other data consumers, for example detecting
of places where bicycle crossing should be created would be significantly 
harder.

But many highway=crossing bicycle=no exists and OSM Wiki should document that 
also this
tagging scheme is used and what is its meaning as used by mappers.

What kind of tagging should be recommended/deprecated is a separate issue.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-08 Thread OSM



Am 07.10.2020 um 23:01 schrieb Emvee via Tagging:
Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node 
means it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate 
penalty as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the 
node. I know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see 
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


Really just by bicycle=no on a node?
It does not check for barrier=* first?
I think that would be a bad idea.

Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is 
used in combination with highway=crossing.


At least I think so.

The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the 
case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while 
cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"


I think so. The main tag ist highway=crossing.
I see this as common practice (for whom this crossing is meant).

I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated 
in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and 
outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not 
give "additional possibilities";


You can check the simple node context - as a bicycle=no (should) never 
stand alone on a node.


by giving the right access rights on the ways connecting to the node 
all possible access scenarios can be covered.


That can be a solution for crossings.

Georg



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


[Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-07 Thread Emvee via Tagging
Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node means 
it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate penalty 
as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the node. I 
know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see 
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is used 
in combination with highway=crossing.


The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the 
case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while 
cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"


I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated 
in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and 
outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not 
give "additional possibilities"; by giving the right access rights on 
the ways connecting to the node all possible access scenarios can be 
covered.


Started this new thread as I just subscribed to the tagging list and I 
think this title is more focusing on what is the point but please have a 
look at
"meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread for the other side of 
the story, 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/055611.html


Would be good to get some feedback from others as this has been a (too) 
long debate between only me and the of the author of the "meaning of 
highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno



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