Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of
work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and
some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be
tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
but can't remember or instantly find the tag. Some would be a bit
subjective (especially where length and width are constrained), but
something comparably coarse to wheelchair=limited would be a start
Despite riding a normal (except for being huge and laden with
accessories) bike, and being able to lift it, accessibility of bike
infrastructure is an area of particular interest for me. I actually
went for a child seat instead of a trailer because of the
restrictiveness of some of the bike paths round here.
"Dismount" seems like by far the best tag if your average commuter
cyclist or even a skilled roadie couldn't ride it - and some of the
examples I've seen would put off most hardcore mountain bikers, while
steps have been OK on my hybrid (each step longer than the bike, drops
small).
On 14/12/2020 17:27, Simon Still wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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/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
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
