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

One possibility to state your opinion is JOSM ticket #9158 [1]. If logged in, you can vote on every page. Cheers fly [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158 On 07.10.2013 18:09, fly wrote: > I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. > > At least in Germany there is no of

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

> Am 20/ott/2013 um 22:22 schrieb Dan S : > > we should > have a separate no-pushing-bicycles tag that's not part of bicycle=* > ("bicycle:pushed=*"...? or is there anything in actual use?) not sure about actual use, but I'd prefer bicycle_pushing=no or pushing_bicycle=no or sth. different fo

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

2013/10/19 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2013/10/19 Frank Little >> >> As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers >> to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what >> people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no >

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

2013/10/19 Frank Little > As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers > to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what > people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no > cycling'). > shall we really question t

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

indicates a separate way which is mainly or exclusively used by cyclists." could probably better read "mainly used or sometimes exclusively used ..." . - Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging]

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

2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran > Depending on cultural > differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but > definitely not as means of transportation. > put "dog riding" in your preferred search engine pic search and you'll get an awful lot of pictures, including stuff like a dog ridin

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

People in Alaska might disagree with you... I have no idea whether dog sledges are banned on certain streets, of course. Jo 2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran > Hello, > > SomeoneElse wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> > >> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out > th

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

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stefan Tiran wrote: > Depending on cultural > differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but > definitely not as means of transportation. Depends your size and the size of the dog... Pieren, tagging footways with dog:dismount=yes, just in case.

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

Hello, SomeoneElse wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that >> "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as >> this has nothing to do with cycling. > > What about the equivalent situation fo

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

SomeoneElse wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out > > > that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing > a > > bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling. > > What about the equivalent situation f

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

Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians as well. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote: Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used

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

2013/10/16 SomeoneElse > What about the equivalent situation for horses? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011 > > Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that > this is very definitely related to horseriding. :) > maybe this is different under UK legi

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling. What about the equivalent situation for horses? http://www.openstreetmap.org/b

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

2013/10/16 Richard Mann > Nothing to fear except a long walk back to where you started when you try > to get out here: http://goo.gl/maps/9ncnD > > I guess you could throw the bike over the fence. Or wait until one of > those cars opens the gate. > > (and don't ask me what you do if you are in a

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

2013/10/16 Dan S > and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that > there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which > occur often: > * cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I > consider bicycle=no) > * cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which,

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

2013/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > >> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt : >> >> This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread >> use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount. > > there is really no difference in meaning between bicy

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

On 2013-10-16 at 10:10:50 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt: > >(this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have > >inserted "my" problem with bicycle=no/dismount) > > > >Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which > >are pa

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

> There are only some singular situations where "pushing bicycles as an object" is not allowed. > In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ... > none I suppose, but I never was in such situation yet. > > Georg Nothing

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

Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt: (this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have inserted "my" problem with bicycle=no/dismount) Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are part of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths.

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

> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt : > > This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread use > of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount. there is really no difference in meaning between bicycle=no (cycling is legally forbidden) a

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

(this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have inserted "my" problem with bicycle=no/dismount) Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are part of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths. The legal requirements is that cyclists dismount

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

> Am 16/ott/2013 um 00:49 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" > : > > That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no > cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need > to agree on first. IMHO as bicycle is a tag about "cyclists" according to the

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

On 14 October 2013 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/10/14 Richard Mann >> >> bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing > > +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-) > If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have it

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/10/14 Richard Mann > > > bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing > > > > > +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-) > If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to > have it > on all ways a

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

2013/10/14 Richard Mann > bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing +1, for routing that should be sufficient, but not for mapping ;-) If they are explicitly forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have it on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO). cheers, Martin ___

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

Am 14.10.2013 14:40, schrieb Richard Mann: > bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing Only if you do not allow parts to be footpaths where you push you bike. How about bicycle_pushed=* or pushing_bicycle=*. Maybe even 2wheel_vehicle_pushed ? fly

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

A short section of pushing a bike along a footpath will often be preferential to only using a route where a bike can be ridden. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/10/2013 13:40 Richard Mann wrote: bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing On Mon, Oct 14, 20

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

Wow, Oxford's parks sound a fun place to be! Not! ;-) On a more serious note, I would have thought tagging this one: http://cycle.st/p17860 would be straight forward because no pedestrian and no bicycle also means no pushing a bicycle. You gotta wonder who can use he gate? :-) But thanks St

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

bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower < socks-openstreetmap@earth.li> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > wrote: > > > > and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an a

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

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] 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). Just for the

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

lthough 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 Messa

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

: 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 wit

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

gulation). - 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:

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

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

unt? (And yes, I do understand that many cyclists, me included, don't like it and often ignore it.) But it not just a "made up" sign. It's there in real life. And we map what is there. - Original Message - From: "Jonathan" To: Sent: Friday, Octob

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

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

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

On 10/10/2013 01:13 PM, fly wrote: On 10.10.2013 20:03, Mike N wrote: On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote: The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude bicycles. What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this route instead of t

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

uot;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 bicyc

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

like the Netherlands, is understandable). Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about. - Original Message - From: "Jonathan" To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways However, if there is a

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

mount is about. - Original Message - From: "Jonathan" To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't even be pushed, which I'm unawa

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

Nope, the only difference is a way changes from a way that can contain cycles to a route that can't, it's an access issue. http://bigfatfrog67.me On 10/10/2013 19:18, Mike N wrote: On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote: >What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this >route i

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

If you can't cycle on a way then it isn't a cycleway! http://bigfatfrog67.me On 10/10/2013 19:10, 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 sig

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

It doesn't need a hint, it should be making that decision currently on all routes: is it quicker to get off and push if that is allowed. Nothing needs to change to support this other than to tag routes using ACCESS that a bicycle can't be pushed on. I reiterate, bicycle=dismount is a pointles

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

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

On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote: >What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this >route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking >speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take >a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

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

On 10.10.2013 20:03, Mike N wrote: > On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote: >> The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access >> tag to exclude bicycles. > > What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this > route instead of taking a longer route? K

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

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.o

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

On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote: The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude bicycles. What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking speed + time to

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

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. However, if there is a situation in a country whe

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

It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different situations are involved. 1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike. To tag these situations the current solution is to tag "bicycle=dismoun

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

> Am 10/ott/2013 um 16:28 schrieb fly : > > The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more common than > "_" but at the end it does not really matter. this as a different separator: the colon is for hierarchical structures (a:b b is a subtag of a) and the underscore is a substitution

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

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating bicycle=dismount On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote: > Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that > would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions. The convention did change a bit by time and now ":" is more comm

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge > > > After I posted this message, I read another message suggesting > > bicycle:push=no, which is a better suggestion than bicycle=no. > > > > I still believe that something along "foot:bicycle-pushing=no" would > be > better, as a cycl

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

2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge > After I posted this message, I read another message suggesting > bicycle:push=no, which is a better suggestion than bicycle=no. I still believe that something along "foot:bicycle-pushing=no" would be better, as a cyclist who dismounted his bicycle is not a cyclist

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge > > > I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning. > > > > > you can insist on this, but we are not starting to map right now, and > given > that "bicycle" has the longstanding meaning of "cyclist" in osm, your > proposal would imply a

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

Can happen where pedestrians and stopping are prohibited, but cycling is allowed. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 09/10/2013 14:55 John F. Eldredge wrote: Georg Feddern wrote: Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty: On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I remember s

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

2013/10/9 John F. Eldredge > I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning. > you can insist on this, but we are not starting to map right now, and given that "bicycle" has the longstanding meaning of "cyclist" in osm, your proposal would imply a change on this meaning --- a tag that is used 4

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

> Georg Feddern wrote: > > Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty: > > On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the > narrow footway of a bridge over the James River, in > Richmond, Vir

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

Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty: > > On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > >> I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow > >> footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, > USA. > >> Not only was the footway narrow,

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

2013/10/9 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > f bicycle=* is currently widely used to express access rights for > cycling, then I'd suggest we leave it like that, as it does the job > pretty well. > +1 > Rather than trying to add additional values to this key > to capture access rigths for pushed

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

On 7 October 2013 17:09, fly wrote: > I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. > > At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the > existence of some. I don't think the issue here is really whether there is a need within instances of "no cycling" to distingu

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

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

Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty: On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. Not only was the footway narrow, [...] there's a cyclists must dismount s

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

The Dutch example is based on a local (municipal) ordinance which regulates whether you are allowed to walk your bicycle in this pedestrian zone. So, it is a "real" regulation (but it is not an example of a "bicycle dismount" regulation). Bicycles are not allowed at all, so a "bicycle=no" tag

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

>Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official >and not made up by some people ? Not my country, but in the UK it's listed here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made Some countries have a blanket allowance for using a text only sign when no suita

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

Stefan Tiran wrote: > Hi, > > John F. Eldredge wrote: > > If you really meant "it is in no way acceptable to require people to > dismount > > their bikes", > > Indeed this is what I meant. Thanks for pointing out this ambiguity! > > > what about the real-life situation I described earlier, a n

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

Hi, John F. Eldredge wrote: > If you really meant "it is in no way acceptable to require people to dismount > their bikes", Indeed this is what I meant. Thanks for pointing out this ambiguity! > what about the real-life situation I described earlier, a narrow > footway along one side of a brid

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

2013/10/8 Matthijs Melissen > No, the legal basis is a local regulation called Algemene Plaatselijke > Verordening (General local ordinance): > > http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html > the liberal times of the Netherlands are only con

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

On 8 October 2013 20:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen > >> Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone >> photo made in poor lighting). >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg

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

> 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/90

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

On 8 October 2013 19:46, Ole Nielsen wrote: > Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone > photo made in poor lighting). > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg > > It literally transl

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

2013/10/8 Ole Nielsen > Here is one found in a local shopping centre in Rijswijk (crappy phone > photo made in poor lighting). > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg > > It literally translates to "Forbidden to

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

2013/10/8 fly > Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official > and not made up by some people ? > you are only refering to public roads, but private owners could impose whatever rules they like, e.g. on private squares, private shopping malls and adjacent areas, etc.,

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

On 08/10/2013 02:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out used? Do you

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

Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions. Tod -- Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity. "Janko Mihelić" wrote: >I think dismount should be a key, not a value - >bicycle_dismount=yes/no. >

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

I think dismount should be a key, not a value - bicycle_dismount=yes/no. On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes. On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=no When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*. Bicycle=dis

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

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Ole Nielsen wrote: > > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and > bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no > bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus > you need bicyc

  1   2   >