There are some places where that tag would be appropriate I think. But not just because there is a cycle path nearby.
I'm thinking highways outside the city with an adjacent cycle path. But I guess there could be a case for these tags, although they would have to be changed when the law changes. Would it not be better to keep these things separate from osm? Tag what's on the ground, not in the law books? söndag 12 juli 2015 skrev Leonardo Brondani Schenkel <[email protected] >: > On 12/07/2015 18:47, Martin Norbäck Olivers wrote: > > Yes you must use the cycle path but that law will probably soon change. > > > > You are allowed to use the road if it's better for your destination, > > whatever that means. So it's not against the law to use the road and so > > it should not be tagged as such. > > > > A routing app for bicycles should be clever enough to use the bike path > > anyway. > > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the quick reply. If I understood you correctly, then Sweden > would qualify as one of the countries having "compulsory cycleways" as > defined at the wiki: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath > > I do understand that there are scenarios that authorize you to use the > road, and that's why bicycle="use_sidepath" is not the same as > bicycle="no". Are you objecting to the latter or to the former as well? > > P.S.: I don't really get why the law says you *must* use the cycle path > and at the same time allows you to use the road. This means to me that > in practice the use of the cycle path is encouraged, but not really > mandatory (if hypothetically the police stops you, you could always > argue that "it was better for your destination", couldn't you?). > > // Leonardo. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-se mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se >
_______________________________________________ Talk-se mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
