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 node. 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 node?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging