I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t had the time to come back to it.
From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag ACCESSIBILITY - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some users - not related to the legality but so that disabled cyclists (unable to dismount), those using trailers or trikes or other non-standard cycles could specify a route that avoided sections where they could not ride. Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not because of the legality but because of the steps. If the bridge was had a ramp, or there was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across (even if there was a cyclist dismount sign) then I think tagging the dismount would be wrong. > On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > > FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made of > ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My objective > is to allow routers to intelligently route for both sport/club/large group > riding and happy meandering or commute: > > bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe and > practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. Sometimes > on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side also exists. > > where there is a ramp: > ramp=yes > bicycle=dismount (here I am tagging on practicality rather than legalities, > Sweden is much more relaxed than UK) > ramp:stroller=yes where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport > demographic) > > on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would be > much longer: > bicycle=carry (informal/experimental) > > I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router more > quantitative input on whether to route or avoid. > > And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard tagging at > the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a steep flight of > steps around a corner! > > Mike > > On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote: >> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address. >> >> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not >> as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, >> similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see >> "discouraged" at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation> >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions> says >> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'. >> >> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for >> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a >> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in >> default (I think it does for CycleStreets). >> >> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to >> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though. >> >> Jon
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
