It's cycleway all the way down, under the bridge, and up the other side.
We don't get to decide whether it's a cycleway or not. That's what the
signs are for.
If it had changed into a footpath, there would be a sign (the Dutch are
good at that).
I agree that if there was a pedestrian sign, it would be enough to mark
it as a footway (implies 'dismount and push').
I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed
(they just have to be pushed).
Can anyone please explain what the problem is with keeping the tag
bicycle=dismount?
(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" <bigfatfro...@gmail.com>
To: <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
I'm not suggesting the dismount sign is ignored on the map, I'm
saying, if cycling is not allowed (i.e. cyclist should dismount and no
longer cycle) then it should either not be marked as a cycleway or the
access tag should be used to restrict cycles on the way.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
