Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

2015-04-09 Thread Craig Wallace
On 2015-04-09 14:00, Phil Endecott wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and cycleway=lane. IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be removed. Any thoughts? "Cycle lanes" that you cannot, either practically or legally,

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane

2015-04-09 Thread Maarten Deen
On 2015-04-09 16:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: From: Martin Koppenhoefer but "what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles". IMHO it says there is a bicycle lane, but you cannot use it by bike (as you can't use any of the lanes by bike, including those for cars). I beg to differ. My r

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane

2015-04-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2015-04-09 16:29 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > My reasoning was in analogy to a street with compulsory-use cycle lanes > with tags like: > highway=residential| > bicycle=no > cycleway=lane > bicycle=no says that bikes are not allowed. If there is a cycleway on that street, that is only impli

[OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane

2015-04-09 Thread Volker Schmidt
From: Martin Koppenhoefer > > > but "what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles". > > IMHO it says there is a bicycle lane, but you cannot use it by bike (as you > can't use any of the lanes by bike, including those for cars). > I beg to differ. My reasoning was in analogy to a street

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

2015-04-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2015-04-09 15:00 GMT+02:00 Phil Endecott : > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the- > month/December2013.htm > this one doesn't seem to prohibit bicycles, it seems to be stroken through? Is this an official sign? Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

2015-04-09 Thread Phil Endecott
Maarten Deen wrote: I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and cycleway=lane. IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be removed. Any thoughts? "Cycle lanes" that you cannot, either practically or legally, cycle along are horribly common. Examples

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

2015-04-09 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
[bicycle=no; cycleway=lane] means that there is a lane for bicycles but cycling is anyway not allowed there. Typically it would be a tagging mistake, usable cycleway lanes should be tagged as [cycleway=lane]. On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200 Maarten Deen wrote: > I came across this example [1

[OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

2015-04-09 Thread Maarten Deen
I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and cycleway=lane. I was using brouter [2] for some bicyclerouting and one of the rules for bikerouting there is that bicycle=no means no bicycles are allowed. IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be removed