On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:43 PM Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to bring this up in the list. > I am not happy with the recent change of the key:access page of the wiki > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Key:access has been changed on 24 May 2020 > by Flohoff, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access for the > current revision. > > To view this change, see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access&diff=next&oldid=1994688 > ----- > In my country (Italy) there are literally thousands of ways where it is most > likely legal to pass by bicycle, but there is no (practical) way of finding > out. > Essentially two classes: > > plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle paths but > have no signage at all > plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle" sign, but > in reality you can happily pass with your bicycle and no policeman will ever > say anything, or even know that "no vehicle" legally includes "no bicycle", > There are plenty of cases where even signposted cycle routes follow such > roads.
Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount). Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private. If those service roads are public (say, for pedestrians) and legislation implies that a cyclist riding a bicycle is on a "vehicle", then what you have in this situation is probably access=yes + motor_vehicle=no + bicycle=dismount. With bicycle=dismount, router will still route through those ways, but it will assume the cyclist will be respecting the law, and thus pushing the bike slowly, and so will tend to prefer faster ways where riding is legal. > I am consistently using bicycle=permissive in these cases, well being aware > that I do not know of he owner has given permission. Basically any > cycle-routing would come to a halt without this trick. *=permissive should be used when the owner (so, not 'public' ways) allows passage. Whether "allowing" should be explicit (through signs) or implicit (through law) depends on the interpretation of local legislation. The law in many countries functions on a positive logic (you are allowed to do something only if there is a sign saying you are allowed), while others operate on a negative logic (everything is allowed unless a sign forbids you). > The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically applicable > here. > My questions are: > Is Italy the only country with this problem? Brazil has this problem. We usually operate on the negative logic, but bikes have an exception defined in law. The law here says that you cannot ride a bicycle in parks unless there is signage allowing, and the vast majority of parks have no such signage. This is because the law here says paths in parks are "pedestrian ways" by default, and cyclists cannot 'ride' in "pedestrian ways," but of course they can push the bike there. In practice, many people do ride their bikes in parks without signage and never get a ticket. Still, if there is an accident involving a pedestrian, the law would in principle be applied this way. > Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see on > the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle" If you want to set access tags in a way that works properly with all apps, then setting access tags requires knowledge of what's on the ground and also what's on the local law, plus the differences between default access [1] and country-specific access [2] rules. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Default [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Italy > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
