Hallo.
Sorry for not answering for a while. I had/have to concentrate on my studies. As for bicycle=obligatory/mandatory, I can see why there is so much objection for introducing a new value, but I still think that the current use of bicycle=official/designated/yes is less optimal than it could be. If some you feels up for it, I would like to hear your thoughts on the following separated cycle way >>with and without<< the corresponding traffic sign. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foo t_path.jpg) The way I see it, it is official and designated for cyclist in both cases, at least from the wording. However, the question remains whether it should also be tagged as bicycle=official/designated or bicycle=yes or something else. I would also like to ask you to considered the normal situation (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycl e_and_foot_path.jpg) in the same way and in comparison to the stand-alone cycle way. Yours, Hubert From: Hubert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Freitag, 27. März 2015 23:57 To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' Subject: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with bicycle=obligatory. <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get your ideas and comments already. This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath. As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am hoping for a lot of support from the community. Happy mapping Hubert
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
