On 16/10/2020 09:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing,
not least because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally
bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for
those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most
public footpaths in England & Wales).

Good to hear what cycle.travel does regarding with bicycle=no/dismount
on a crossing, that is ignore it. Also good to hear your perspective on
bicycle=dismount versus bicycle=no. It makes sense but I was not aware.

On bicycle=no/dismount on highway=crossing: In >95% of the cases
bicycle=no/dismount is useless because the access rights on the
connecting ways suffice. My educated guess is that there are about 3000
crossings marked with bicycle=no/dismount while allowed to cycle over
them using the road.

brouter does take bicycle=no/dismount in node context into account, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265 and that gives a moderate
penalty as the assumption is made on can unmount crossing the crossing

The problem with ignoring is that "bicycle=no/dismount" on
highway=crossing is that it becomes use useless tag. The main data
consumers of openstreetmap data are map makers (who do not care) and
routers as for others the data on crossings is not complete enough for
other use. So the routing perspective is an important one.

Should routers (keep) ignoring bicycle=no/dismount on a highway=crossing
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to