Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Petr Holub]

 

Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

 

 

 

 

Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).

 

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At every "end 
of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed
to dismount and cross the lateral road as pedestrian


well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - in my 
opinion it is no need for a _dismount_
there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal
cycleway/footway (with the regarding legal rights above the otherwise crossing 
traffic) and have to obey the crossing
traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as cyclist

 

Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed to use a 
normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on
your bike in the Czech Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra 
for bicycle crossing, but in that case the
"end of cycleway" sign is not used. I've posted the most blatant examples of 
idiotic cycleways.

 

Petr

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 22:46 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a pedestrian area.


are you allowed to carry them? what about foldable bikes? monocycles? tandems? 
horses? big dogs?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 23:36 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> was ...
> ... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.
> 
> We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but 
> that doesn't change the sign.
> And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.


did they also place a bicycle remount sign or do you have to remain dismounted 
for the rest of your life? How long is the dismount valid? If there is no 
remount sign my interpretation would be it is punctual.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :
> 
> I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed 
> (they just have to be pushed).


at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about 
cyclists.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept 
of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad 
that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with 
your bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow 
bicycles to even be present on some ways.


So, we need to adjust the values in the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect this.


Looking at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions 
there are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we 
address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are 
being ridden or not.


However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The 
dismount road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can 
no longer ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the 
ACCESS rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, 
just like we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of 
traffic or modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only", 
we modify the ACCESS tag.


So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the 
bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.


Here's a clue : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :

I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed (they 
just have to be pushed).


at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about 
cyclists.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is 
there.  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the 
result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, 
we are representing the real world to computers.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but 
that doesn't change the sign.
>And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg

This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map 
that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not 
allowed.  Although, in this case I can't see how that works, as a 
pedestrian how do you get to the other side of the service road because 
it would appear neither pedestrians nor cyclist are allowed on these 
sections? Typical idiocy of local bureaucrats.



http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:24, Petr Holub wrote:


Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At 
every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and 
cross the lateral road as pedestrian



well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - 
in my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding 
legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey 
the crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as 
cyclist


Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed 
to use a normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on your bike in the Czech 
Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra for bicycle 
crossing, but in that case the "end of cycleway" sign is not used. 
I've posted the most blatant examples of idiotic cycleways.


Petr



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

Jonathan, I think you are saying that foot=yes+bicycle=no covers it. It
doesn't because bicycle=dismount is typically advisory, and considerably
less strong than bicycle=no. Usually it means that a pedestrian might take
umbrage, but the authorities aren't interested in making it an offence.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan  wrote:

> We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept
> of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad
> that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with your
> bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow bicycles to
> even be present on some ways.
>
> So, we need to adjust the values in the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
> wiki/Access  tag to reflect
> this.
>
> Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/**
> Access-Restrictionsthere
>  are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we
> address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are
> being ridden or not.
>
> However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The dismount
> road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can no longer
> ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the ACCESS
> rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, just like
> we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of traffic or
> modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only", we modify the
> ACCESS tag.
>
> So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the
> bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.
>
> Here's a clue : 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:bicycle
>
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
> On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>  Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" :
>>>
>>> I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed
>>> (they just have to be pushed).
>>>
>>
>> at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about
>> cyclists.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>> __**_
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.

Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the A55.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 10/10/2013 22:36 Frank Little wrote:

Here's an example from the Netherlands:

http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/

It's a cycleway (mopeds also allowed). No change in highway type here.
It's cycleway all the way down.


There were accidents. The local authority decided that the best way to
reduce the risk of accidents was ...
... to sign it with a "cyclists dismount' sign.


We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that,
but that doesn't change the sign.
And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there. There are
plenty of signs I disagree with.
(Or even ignore.) But that doesn't mean we should leave them out of OSM.


Is it "legal": Well, the council placed it (though I couldn't find a
basis for it in the local ordinance).
Could a strategically-placed policeman fine you if you ignored the sign?
(Like most people will do).
Probably he could (there's always the catch-all in the road
regulations), though in practice he might not.
If you cause an accident, your insurance company might want to take it
into account.


I am not in favour of tagging "dismount" for any other reason than a
sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation).



- Original Message -
From: "fly" 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



> On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a
>>> change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown! The only way to
>>> tag
>>> the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude
>>> bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/
>>
>> looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a
>> cycleway. It also has a "cyclists dismount" sign on it.
>
> Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged:
>
> highway=path
> foot=yes/designated
> vehicle=no
> note=bicycle dismount sign
>
> or it is unofficial and
>
> highway=path
> foot=yes/designated
> bicycle=designated
> vehicle=no
> note=bicycle dismount sign
>
> no need for bicycle=dismount
>
> cu
> fly
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> lowfligh...@googlemail.com
> http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/


___

Tagging mailing list

lowfligh...@googlemail.com
http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Jonathan 

> No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is there.
>  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the result of
> those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, we are
> representing the real world to computers.
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
>
> On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> >We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that,
>> but that doesn't change the sign.
>> >And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.
>>
>

Please pay attention when citing, this is not what I wrote but what I cited
from Frank little. Thank you.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Jonathan 

> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
>
> This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map
> that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not
> allowed.



I wouldn't interpret this that cycling or walking isn't allowed, it simply
seems to be a way to make pedestrians and cyclists aware that they are
crossing a road and therefor should pay attention. It ends a dedicated
shared foot-cycleway, but it is not prohibiting them.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Philip Barnes 

> In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.
>
>
> Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the
> A55.
>


what about mofas? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:mofa
that's a class of bicycles with an assisting motor, regulated for a
maxspeed of 25km/h, and what about electric bicycles?

FWIW, in Germany they are allowed outside closed settlements and forbidden
inside.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

I think they count as bicycles, providing the top speed is less than 15mph, 
about 25kph.

Can't see the point myself, slower than my proper bike and don't keep me fit.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 11/10/2013 11:32 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2013/10/11 Philip Barnes 

In the UK, mopeds cannot be ridden on cycleways.


Moped routing should be as motorcycle but avoid motorways and some of the A55.


what about mofas? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:mofa

that's a class of bicycles with an assisting motor, regulated for a maxspeed of 
25km/h, and what about electric bicycles?


FWIW, in Germany they are allowed outside closed settlements and forbidden 
inside.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:
> +1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 

> (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
> (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no
>


IMHO we should encourage tagging of the permission of pedestrians to push a
bicycle only for those few places where it isn't allowed to do so (and
probably in many of these cases it won't just be forbidden to push a
bicycle or two, but also to carry it/them, while it might mostly be allowed
to carry the bicycles in a box just like you'd be allowed to carry any
other big loads).

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle because
pedestrians aren't allowed there, but I wouldn't tag this explicitly on
each of these cycleways because it would lead to a huge amount of
redundance (as mostly pushing a bicycle means nothing other than "foot").

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Mike N]

On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
because pedestrians aren't allowed there


  I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown 
and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway 
and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

Yes, many apologies, was a mis-click.

Sorry Martin

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 11:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:




2013/10/11 Jonathan >


No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is
there.  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we
map the result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in
the real world, we are representing the real world to computers.

http://bigfatfrog67.me


On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have
done that, but that doesn't change the sign.
>And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.



Please pay attention when citing, this is not what I wrote but what I 
cited from Frank little. Thank you.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 11/ott/2013 um 13:23 schrieb Mike N :
> 
> I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown and can't 
> repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway and back home via 
> the roadway instead of the cycleway?


yes, if you have a break down it would be allowed, like you could leave your 
car on a motorway in case of a breakdown 

cheers 
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Jonathan]

+1 Totally agree, thanks Robert for a sensible summary.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 11:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

That depends where you are located, Mike. The rules in Germany, for 
example, are different from the Netherlands.
Martin's statement is not necessarily true in the Netherlands (and 
perhaps that is where the confusion begins).


In the Netherlands, the law states:
pedestrians use the sidewalk; if there is none, they use the cycleway; 
if there is none, they use the (side of the) road.
Cycleways in the Netherlands are not signed separately for pedestrian 
use.


There are three categories of cycleway, one only for bicycles, one for 
bicycles and lightest category of mopeds (OSM: mofa), one where the 
other category of mopeds is also allowed.
All three have a different sign. (The bicycle | pedestrians signs are 
not used at all.)
It is not compulsory to use the first kind, the other two are compulsory 
(you are not allowed to cycle on the adjacent road).
Whether you have to use the road instead of the cycleway with a heavy 
class moped depends on the signs.
In general, the heavier class moped in the Netherlands must use the road 
in the built-up area, but not always.


The general traffic regulations say that if you push your bicycle, you 
follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
This also applies to mopeds (both classes) and motorbikes: if you push 
it, you follow the rules for pedestrians.
You do not become a pedestrian: your moped / motorbike needs a license 
plate and road insurance.
And you need an appropriate driving license (for a moped/motorbike), 
although you do not need to wear your helmet.


If your bike breaks down and you push it  and there is no sidewalk, you 
behave as if you were a pedestrian and stay on the cycleway.

In the Netherlands.
(Other countries may have different rules.)


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike N" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways



On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
because pedestrians aren't allowed there


  I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown 
and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway 
and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Stefan Tiran]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> IMHO we should encourage tagging of the permission of pedestrians to push a 
> bicycle only for those few places where it isn't allowed to do so (and 
> probably 
> in many of these cases it won't just be forbidden to push a bicycle or two, 
> but 
> also to carry it/them, while it might mostly be allowed to carry the bicycles 
> in 
> a box just like you'd be allowed to carry any other big loads).

+1


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

Nice summary: thanks, Robert.
In the Netherlands:

(a) Yes, this is true: if there is no sidewalk (very common outside the 
built-up area).
(b) This is only true if there is a sidewalk; if there is no sidewalk, 
see (a). Different countries have different rules.
(c) This is generally true on footpaths and pedestrian areas (unless 
otherwise signed).
(d) Yes, if it is a pedestrian zone / signed footpath (=no cycling) and 
also specifically signed 'no pushed bicycles' (quite rare)


In the Netherlands, the default for all cycleways is (or should be) 
foot=yes if there is no adjacent sidewalk in OSM.

Since it is the default, it is often not explicitly tagged.
The regulations here say that when you push a bike/moped/motorcycle you 
follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
Therefore, pushing a bike/moped/motorcycle on a cycleway is allowed by 
default and does not need explicit tagging in NL.
The default for all footways and pedestrian zones is bicycle=no (no 
cycling). Pushing a bike etc. is allowed by default.
In a small number of cases only is a new tag needed for the 'no bike 
pushing' situation.

(I retract my previous claim that bicycle=no will cover those cases.)




On 11 October 2013 12:55, Robert Whittaker wrote:



To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:53 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly  wrote:
> > +1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount
> 
> To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
> four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
> whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
> push a bike:
> 
> (a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
> (b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
> (c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
> (d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed
> 
> I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
> UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
> could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
> pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
> on a cycle route, where "dismount" signs are shown, or a typical
> pedestrian shopping street with "no cycling" signs, and (d) would be
> an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed"
> (Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
> ago).
> 
> Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
> distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
> where you can go with your bike and at what pace.
> 
> Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
> with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
> people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
> either "no cycling" or "no bicycles". Also (although less importantly)
> using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
> cases (a) and (b).
> 
> I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
> information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
> bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
> discussed and agreed upon later.
> 
> With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
> now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
> rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
> distingiush between the four cases above:
> 
> (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
> (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
> (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no
> 
> bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
> by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
> push your bike).
> 
> For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
> the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
> you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
> default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
> carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
> tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).
> 
+1

b can also cover roads where pedestrians are prohibited, but cyclists
are allowed. A real life example I can think of is the A483 between
Chirk and Wrexham.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/11 Frank Little 

> In the Netherlands, the default for all cycleways is (or should be)
> foot=yes if there is no adjacent sidewalk in OSM.
> Since it is the default, it is often not explicitly tagged.
>


IMHO better be explicit if you want to be sure. If the "default" (by law)
is dependent on other ways (like the presence of a footway) it will be too
complicated for almost every (at least) existing application to understand
(also because you won't be sure if the ways are parallel or are maybe at
different levels separated by a retaining wall etc.).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Am 11.10.2013 12:26, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 
> 2013/10/11 Jonathan mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>>
> 
> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
> 
> This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to
> map that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is
> not allowed. 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't interpret this that cycling or walking isn't allowed, it
> simply seems to be a way to make pedestrians and cyclists aware that
> they are crossing a road and therefor should pay attention. It ends a
> dedicated shared foot-cycleway, but it is not prohibiting them.

+1

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Am 09.10.2013 09:40, schrieb Georg Feddern:
> Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that
>> bicycle=no
>> is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
>> Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
>> make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
>> http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
>> http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
>> (and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).
>>
>>
>> This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At
>> every "end of cycleway" sign you are legally supposed to dismount and
>> cross the lateral road as pedestrian
> 
> well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - in
> my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
> In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or
> serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding
> legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey the
> crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as cyclist.

+1

highway=crossing
crossing=unmarked
sloped_curb=both

would be appropriate.

cu
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

I do not know many cases of dedicated cycleways without a nearby path or
road in Germany.

On a break down you should get you vehicle out of the way which means
you are allowed to push/carry your bicycle to the next path. Similar
even counts for motorcars which you are allowed to push to a some
parking place on the road.

All along the rules in NL and DE are pretty the same except for
pedestrians on dedicated cycleways.

fly


Am 11.10.2013 14:30, schrieb Frank Little:
> That depends where you are located, Mike. The rules in Germany, for
> example, are different from the Netherlands.
> Martin's statement is not necessarily true in the Netherlands (and
> perhaps that is where the confusion begins).
> 
> In the Netherlands, the law states:
> pedestrians use the sidewalk; if there is none, they use the cycleway;
> if there is none, they use the (side of the) road.
> Cycleways in the Netherlands are not signed separately for pedestrian use.
> 
> There are three categories of cycleway, one only for bicycles, one for
> bicycles and lightest category of mopeds (OSM: mofa), one where the
> other category of mopeds is also allowed.
> All three have a different sign. (The bicycle | pedestrians signs are
> not used at all.)
> It is not compulsory to use the first kind, the other two are compulsory
> (you are not allowed to cycle on the adjacent road).
> Whether you have to use the road instead of the cycleway with a heavy
> class moped depends on the signs.
> In general, the heavier class moped in the Netherlands must use the road
> in the built-up area, but not always.
> 
> The general traffic regulations say that if you push your bicycle, you
> follow the traffic rules for pedestrians.
> This also applies to mopeds (both classes) and motorbikes: if you push
> it, you follow the rules for pedestrians.
> You do not become a pedestrian: your moped / motorbike needs a license
> plate and road insurance.
> And you need an appropriate driving license (for a moped/motorbike),
> although you do not need to wear your helmet.
> 
> If your bike breaks down and you push it  and there is no sidewalk, you
> behave as if you were a pedestrian and stay on the cycleway.
> In the Netherlands.
> (Other countries may have different rules.)
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Mike N" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
> 
> 
>> On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
>>> because pedestrians aren't allowed there
>>
>>   I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown
>> and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway
>> and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging