Re: [Tagging] meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 19:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I always understood > highway=crossing + bicycle=no > tagging to mean "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, > it does not affect legality of cycling on the road" > This. Or is it a tagging that means "you must dismount while either > using crossing and while cycling on the road", > No. If this was correct, then every crossing that says motor_vehicles=no (all of them?) would mean that vehicles driving down that street, couldn't continue driving across the line of the crossing! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no
We always use it on nodes to mark a crossing where you must dismount. Not very common on ways around here. On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I always understood > highway=crossing + bicycle=no > tagging to mean "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, > it does not affect legality of cycling on the road" > > Used when > (1) cycleway or footway with allowed cycling is interrupted by > crossing where cyclists are obligated to dismount > (2) there is cycleway/footway with allowed cycling on both sides of > road, it is tagged as cycleway:left/cycleway:right/cycleway:both > and there is pedestrian only crossing at some point > (cyclist cannot switch sides without dismounting) > > Or is it a tagging that means "you must dismount while either > using crossing and while cycling on the road", > making this basically useless. > > I am asking as there was discussion on OSM Wiki between me > and one other person, with recent edits to OSM Wiki that seems > to misrepresent real tagging practice. > > I am considering reverting them, but I wanted to ask here whatever > what I think about tagging practice matches what other consider > as consensus. > > See > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dcrossing=history > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno > for OSM Wiki links > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no
I always understood highway=crossing + bicycle=no tagging to mean "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road" Used when (1) cycleway or footway with allowed cycling is interrupted by crossing where cyclists are obligated to dismount (2) there is cycleway/footway with allowed cycling on both sides of road, it is tagged as cycleway:left/cycleway:right/cycleway:both and there is pedestrian only crossing at some point (cyclist cannot switch sides without dismounting) Or is it a tagging that means "you must dismount while either using crossing and while cycling on the road", making this basically useless. I am asking as there was discussion on OSM Wiki between me and one other person, with recent edits to OSM Wiki that seems to misrepresent real tagging practice. I am considering reverting them, but I wanted to ask here whatever what I think about tagging practice matches what other consider as consensus. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dcrossing=history https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno for OSM Wiki links ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
