On 12 November 2013 19:04, Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I understand correctly you're saying that the combination of a > "bicycle=no" & "bicycle:use_cycleway=yes" could mean the same thing as the > proposed tag.
Exactly. > I think it could but I'm not realy in favour of this. The main > reason is that I prefer a "bicycle=" tag so there are no contradicting > options possible and things get clear in just 1 tag. What if a road would be > tagged with a "bicycle=yes" & "bicycle:use_cycleway=yes". What information > would this give to a router? That's indeed a disadvantage. > I don't understand what kind of problems routers/renderers whould have. > Could you explain a little. Remember that most roads for which this new tag > is introduced do not have a "bicycle= " tag yet. (with the exeption of NL) I mean that not all renderers and routers might (immediately) support the new tag if it is accepted. With the "bicycle=no" & "bicycle:use_cycleway=yes" scheme, routers will not send bicycles over illegal roads, even if they do not support the "bicycle:use_cycleway=yes" tag. With bicycle=use_cycleway, if a router doesn't know that tag, the router will route bikes over the road. By the way, have you discussed this proposal in the Dutch community (for example on the Dutch forum)? It might be good to also do that, because the Dutch community will probably make most use of this proposal. -- Matthijs _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
