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 bicycles and cyclists, depending on > whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to > push a bike: > > (a) Cycling and pushing both allowed > (b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed > (c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed > (d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed > > I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the > UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b) > could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no > pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge > on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical > pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) 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). > > Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to > distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine > where you can go with your bike and at what pace. > > Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem > with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c), > people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as > either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly) > using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between > cases (a) and (b). > > I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture > information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this > bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can be > discussed and agreed upon later. > > With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are > now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling' > rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously > distingiush between the four cases above: > > (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes > (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no > (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes > (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no > > bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured > by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can > push your bike). > > For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in > the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies > you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible > default in most of the world. Although we would have to think > carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously > tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d). > +1
b can also cover roads where pedestrians are prohibited, but cyclists are allowed. A real life example I can think of is the A483 between Chirk and Wrexham. Phil (trigpoint) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging