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

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 par

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

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 bicy

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

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

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

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 cyclist

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

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 dependen

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

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 footp

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

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/th

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

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 t

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

+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. Ther

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

> 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 allowe

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

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 sp

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 road

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

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 fe

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

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:

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

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

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

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 o

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

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

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

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. > > htt

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

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/oplos

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

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 Fr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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 ___

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

> 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 the

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

> 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 __

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

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 edit