>What's the difference between "road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may >cycle" and "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may >cycle"?
Because it's not "road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath," but ""road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed" The =use_cycleway / restricted value is closer to "destination" than to "no". It's however with the significant difference that in these cases "the destination" is not anywhere along either of the tagged ways, but the road is sometimes needed for, like, turning left or right at the next intersection, i.e. the cycleway diverges away from the road before the next intersection, or does not have a legal crossing point at or before the next intersection. There might be a longer route available, by first going along the cycleway somewhere, and then approaching on the road from the other direction - or not. The first best example I found was like this intersection: http://osm.org/go/0xPnBw03o-?node=27254468 When driving east, a cyclist must always use the cycleway on the north side of the road, there are obligating signs after each crossing. However, if turning south at the next one(*), they may use the road. A cyclist driving the road all the way to the eastern end could be fined for not obeying traffic signs, in theory anyway. If the whole road Tattarisuontie was tagged bicycle=no, there would be no way to get a cyclist routed to the Jäähdytintie road southward - beyond a long detour. *) There's a phrase in the relevant paragraph: "may use [conditions]... for a short distance " but nobody knows what is "short". -- Alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
