1) true, but wouldn't that by default be all steps unless otherwise
noted? I guess in this case it's assumed that the steps inherit their
implicit access from bridleway, so that might be different from the
general case...?
2) a noble cause, but again I would think that excluding bicycle=no from
such a list of places would be more beneficial than including bicycle=yes
3) of course
At any rate, the worst outcome of this is redundant information in OSM,
which isn't so bad all things considered :)
Jens
On 29.04.2024 12:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
1) at least some people may be interested in places where cycling across
steps is legal (not fan of MTBing etc but at least some people like it?
not really sure here about whether it is actually something that people
look for )
2) people may be interested in places where cyclists nominally have
right of the way but actual infrastructure is not suitable for cycling
3) yes, routers need to look also on other tags and process various
obstacles (see also surface=sand and so
And in general meaning is clear: these are steps were cyclist are
allowed to cycle.
Note it does not mean that cycling is feasible or a good idea there.
Apr 29, 2024, 08:36 by [email protected]:
Generally speaking, how do we reconcile these two?
bicycle=yes
highway=steps
What is a data consumer supposed to infer from this as opposed to
just highway=steps? As long as foot=designated, aren't cyclists
always allowed to get off the bike and push/carry it? And wouldn't
they have to when there are steps?
Jens
On 28/04/2024 21:35, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
Hi DaveF,
Acting on advice, I have already split the Bridleway and
re-tagged 2 sections as:
bicycle=yes
designation=public_bridleway
foot=designated
highway=steps
horse=designated
incline=down (or up)
lit=no
surface=paved
The steps can be seen on aerial imagery (a bit fuzzy on Bing, but
particularly clear in the aerial imagery whose name shall not be
mentioned in OSM), plus I remember running through there a few
months ago, so I know that the steps are there. I intend to
visit again soon and add more detail (number of steps, etc.)
Between these is a section of the orignal way, which is now
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1277843368
I hope this helps and that you agree with the tagging.
Regards,
Peter
(PeterPan99)
On Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 17:35:58 BST, Dave F via Tagging
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Could you provide the link to the OSM way please?
DaveF
On 28/04/2024 15:19, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
Advice, please.
A local Public Bridleway has a few (3, 4 or 5 from Aerial
imagery) steps going down before it passes under a road bridge,
and a similar number up again on the other side.
How can I best tag this? According to the wiki, "highway=steps"
seems to be *an alternative to*, not *a qualification of *
"highway=bridleway". I don't want to mislead consumers by
breaking the bridleway, but I don't want cycling consumers to be
unaware of the fact that there are a few steps to descend /
ascend, which may require a dismount.
Regards,
Peter
(PeterPan99)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
