On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Pee Wee wrote:
>
> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended. Voting results:
>
>
>
> Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
>
> No: 11
>
> Abstain: 3
>
>
>
> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the
> current one.
>
> We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion. We think and
> hope we have enough information to work on new proposal. It’s been an
> interesting discussion with various views that differ quite a lot.
>
> Our conclusion is that most (but not all) think that tagging bicycle access
> on these roads is a good idea regardless of HOW. The access differs from
> both ordinary roads that allow cycling and roads with an explicit ban.
> Currently there is no broad consensus on HOW to tag these. Basically there
> are 5 different ways that are suggested.
>
> 1. “bicycle= use_cycleway “ (= proposal)
>
> 2. “bicycle=restricted” (no additional key/value)
>
> 3. “bicycle=restricted” combined with a new key/value combination
> (e.g. “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway”)
>
> 4. “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway” (regardless of a bicycle= )
>
> 5. “bicycle=no” combined with a new key/value (e.g.
> “bicycle:use_cycleway=yes” or “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway” )
In the talk page there was also bicycle=use_sideway/path which would
naturally also apply to other access types too (mainly foot but perhaps
also others here and there). However, based on the reasons for rejecting
I'm not very confident that would have significantly more support than
use_cycleway got.
> The new proposal will (most likely) focus on :
>
> 1 The need to tag bicycle access on these roads (Should we tag bicycle
> access?)
>
> 2 What tags to use (How should we tag these?)
>
>
>
> We will report back once we’ve come up with a version that is ready to be
> discussed again. Thanks again.
--
i.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
