> I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway but can't remember or instantly find the tag.
barrier=horse_stile On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Chris Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
