It is annoying for me too. A router discussion. https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79 Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the bicycle=no, which is not a hard no. Some qoutes. “Hm, but in very most cases, bicycle=no is used effectively in sense of bicycle=dismount, not in in sense No bicycles here.” “In my experience, bicycle=dismount is used very rarely, mostly if there is an explicit request to do it, in agreement with OSM intention for short way segments only, like e.g. narrow bridges, passes, collision danger etc.” “ The only relevant interpretation of bicycle=no is the OSM tagging intention, not what I or you think about it. And that is clear - red/white traffic sign with a black bicycle, or legal equivalent.
The routing itself is for bikers, not bicycles. Pushing bicycle is a legal and frequent mode of bicycle transportation. Bikers may then use such profiles that either penalize it either forbide it ( CF=10000 for total ignoring, or 9999 for navigation hint consideration )” Nothing changed. What they saying is, it is common accepted, OSM intention. bicycle=dismount is not often used, but very often should it be used, so routers take the common accepted. =no also = dismount. A hell of a job to set all these =dismount, tagging, what is really prohibited is better, OSM method. (new value?). Talking to route developers is now a past station! Conclusion: no is not a hard no. Unfortunately, we must go further. A new value! This not only a bicycle problem. . No, new access key dismounted_bicycle all others must also have a equivalent, unworkable, more typing. Better one value, that fits all, fits the access systematic hierarchy. You must always look at this hierarchy to make routing decisions. The choose for a key make everything more complicated. Also for visualization. From: Tod Fitch Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:53 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"? This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting a straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer. Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled luggage is it okay now?”. Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already have “dismount”. Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up with a new value for that (“disassembled”?). In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle over a “no”. At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing value. Cheers! Tod Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
