Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push your bike, are you sure that was what it meant? Do you have a picture of the sign? On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, 22:50 Allroads, wrote: > There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is > prohibited. Mostly, priv

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

This is a rather tricky problem, especially as the changes may not follow any particular pattern. I am not a crop mapper at all, but I can distinguish between the major local crops (in Italy). And in many cases the mapping in OSM is wrong, mostly because the data is fruit of imports which were too

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

It happens in some places, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056 Jul 22, 2020, 10:29 by oliversi...@gmail.com: > It

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Apart from the island parts of Venice, there is this "famous" example, cited everytime the argument comes up: Bicycles, even walke, are not allowed in the Schlosspark Nympenburg (see leaflet): "Das Mitführen von Fahrr

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056 and then you would also need bicycle_carried=no and bicyc

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push bikes around would risk them hopping on the bike when nobody is looking. What

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 10:36, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I would go with farmland, orchard, vineyard and not even consider indicating > any rotation of crops. +1, these are also those that I distinguish, because annually sown crops are subject to frequent changes, while you

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:32 +0200, bkil wrote: > I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only > want to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and > pushing the bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and > allowing people to push bikes around would risk

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb bkil : > I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want > to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the > bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push > bikes around would

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry with me (within rational limits). I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think that they have the right to search your box to check whether it contains legally defined bicycles - that could only

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

In Hungary, you are not considered a driver when you are pushing a bicycle or a moped, but you are if you push a motorcycle. In museums, I think I would tag cloakroom:use=mandatory or something like that. It happened to me in the past that I've checked in my portable bicycle in the cloakroom when

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

Jul 22, 2020, 11:33 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 22. Jul 2020, at 10:36, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> I would go with farmland, orchard, vineyard and not even consider indicating >> any rotation of crops. >> > > > +1, these are also those that I distinguish, becau

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

The boxes business is most likely leading us a bit up the Nymphenburg Schlosspark garden path. The real issue is routing for bicycles. Many (bicycle) routers I know would route you against (short) stretches of one-way roads or on short stretches of (bicycle=no) footpaths, so in those cases it is im

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

This may all sound tangential or nitpicking to you, but to those with the right equipment, the tags you propose, depending on scenario would simply be misleading. A photo would help to understand the exact place, but I think you could easily push your foldable bike through narrow passages if you r

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb bkil : > I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry > with me (within rational limits). > > I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think > that they have the right to search your box to check whe

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

Am Di., 21. Juli 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb pangoSE : > Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST) > >On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote: > > > > >I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers) > >to the relevant hiking route relation. > > That does not sound ri

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding this", not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling". Jul 21, 2020, 23:48 by allroadswo...@gmail.com: > There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is > prohibited. Mostly, private

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign > forbidding this", > Indeed. not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling". > That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> > On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually >> have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of >> size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes). >> > they might not even allow big boxes, according to the current situation >

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

22 Jul 2020, 14:24 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding >> this", >> > > Indeed. > > >> >> not "bicycle vehicle itself is p

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 14:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > 22 Jul 2020, 14:24 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there i

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg Geen toegang: - met (brom)fietsen. No access: - with bicycles. This is written, grammatically and orthographly, in a way, that the "vehicle" is meant. explicit the bicycle no access. This is privat land, Staatsbosbeheer, owned

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

I agree that the information "crops are rotated in this field" is not verifiable, because it is recording historic information about what happened the last few seasons, rather than what is in the field right now. It is ok to tag the crop that is currently planted in a field, especially if it's a p

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

Bad practice if you ask me. Where do we limit what POI is nice to add? I have seen huts and shelters and viepoint and buildings added to routes in Sweden. It completely botches up the height profiling by data consumers like waymarked trails and the calculation of route length becomes harder. I

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 7/22/2020 10:34 AM, Allroads wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg - Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen -Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads. Here is written what is allowed. But more important: Overigens ver

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 22/07/2020 16:08, pangoSE wrote: I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. Please don't do this.  If there's a gate on one side of the road you wouldn't add that gate to the road itself, would you? I really think it would be nice to be able to say query and list all

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> I wonder if carrying a bicycle (possibly folded) would also be prohibited > on these unpaved ways? > > As was mentioned in the last thread, the rules for most federal wilderness > areas in the USA strictly prohibit possession of any bicycle on the > property, whether the wheels ever touch the gro

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

It's not the routers' fault. They correctly reflect the mappers' intentions. In almost all cases when we map bicycle=no it means, according to the law, you can pass if you walk your bicycle, because you are considered a pedestrian. We simply missed to realise that we overlooked the rare cases where

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

Guidebooks in a hiking/cycling route should be fine, provided they carry the role=guidepost tag. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, 17:20 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 22/07/2020 16:08, pangoSE wrote: > > > > I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. > > > Please don't do this. If there's a

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

When it was split in 2008, it had the following proposed values: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle&oldid=119888 - bicycle=yes - bicycle=no - bicycle=d

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Re: natural=sinkhole - this tag has been used 9908 times: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=natural&value=sinkhole It is widely distributed: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=sinkhole#map In contrast, natural=sink_hole appears to have only been used in 2 areas in England, m

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle=leave Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 22 jul. 2020 om 17:36 schreef Tod Fitch : > > > On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote: > > If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the > idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd > suggest a n

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 7/22/2020 11:27 AM, bkil wrote: According to OSM wiki history, `bicycle=dismount` is a pretty recent tag, perhaps less than 7 years old. I think `bicycle=no` was invented much earlier. Hence it is you who wants to redefine a well established tag. According to the first version of access=* in

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 22/07/2020 11.25, Tod Fitch wrote: Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a tagging error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see nearly 2000 occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for natural=sinkhole [4]. I guess the write of the wiki page disagre

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

’bicycle’ tag is for the transport mode, cycling. I only use dismount if there is a board saying so. Why ? Because I tag the board not the written law in a book. About the value, I propose : bicycle=banned Le mer. 22 juil. 2020 à 17:36, Tod Fitch a écrit : > > > On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jma

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 7/22/2020 11:34 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, wh

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> > Yes, my guess is that early mappers felt no need for bicycle=dismount > because it was simply presumed that foot=yes + bicycle=no meant the same > thing -- the assumption of a very bicycle-friendly culture! > > The obvious problem with bicycle=closed is that it's rarely used so > routing softwa

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> > My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar > would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current > bicycle=no ways. > > Yes, I think that would be workable. > Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I > fear we're in the

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Tod Fitch wrote: > This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it > starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) > treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new > term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse > than

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 16:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out > over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate > this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this > discussion that has any

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch : > It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has > an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a > place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around > here are not

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 17:10, pangoSE wrote: > > I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. I am mapping guideposts rather rarely, when I do it, I place them on their actual position, sometimes on building outlines, or on retaining walls, or just flying

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means. > > Are these bicycles? > 1. > https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG > > 2. > http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg > > 3.

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render,

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

It is annoying for me too. A router discussion. https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79 Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the bicycle=no, which is not a hard no. Some qoutes. “Hm, but in very most cases, bicycle=no is used effectively in sense of bicycle=dism

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle_possession=no similar pattern could be used for other prohibited items (vs. mode of transportation), e.g. alcohol_posession=no firearm_possession=no On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200 > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > And we would

[Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this (something like capacity:motorcycle)? Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as tw

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around here are not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to get

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

It would be advantageous to map them separately because one riding a motorcycle could make better use of OSM to navigate to and from the exact position of the applicable parking space. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifica

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote: > > If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea > of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest > a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a regulation key > (like smokin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for > motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot > as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this (somethi

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke: Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is *only* the motorcycle spaces which could be amen

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes make sense, let me add another consideration. This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default on highway=footway): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg bicycle=no is usually used on

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > why do we have capacity:disabled, or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling > those spaces as separate lots? because different mappers have different preferences. For disabled parking spaces I would also prefer havi

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil wrote: > > bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg > > On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the roa

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sport:four_square

When creating https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828950465, I wasn't sure how to tag it... it's a somewhat generic paved lot for recreation, but it *does* have markings for four square, which is not unusual for such areas. We do not have an "official" tag for that, although even so there are a

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount + auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred tagging practice in OSM. I.e., b

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:35, Tod Fitch wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote: >> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea >> of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest >> a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which wi

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

The image are traffic_signs, described in traffic law. Traffic_signs must have set dimensions. There is also property access rules mentioned in law. Art. 461 in Wetboek van Strafrecht. The owner can express by sign with text, images, sometimes they use familiar images. Like here. “Hij die, z

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 23/7/20 6:42 am, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke: Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is *onl

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 21/7/20 9:04 pm, Michal Fabík wrote: Hi, in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates attached to a pole. (Example: https://osm.f

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 19:33, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > I think the problem is that bicycle=*, foot=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc > are access mode tags, not possession tags. > > When you dismount from a bicycle, you are now a pedestrian who is in > possession of a certain object. The access tag that ap

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 22:51, bkil wrote: > Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes > make sense, let me add another consideration. > > This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default > on highway=footway): > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wi

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:49:47 +0200 bkil wrote: > Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules > would like to achieve? > vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited + > moped=prohibited + unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited + > wheeled_luggage=prohibited >