May 24, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com: > The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically applicable > here. > My questions are: > Is Italy the only country with this problem? > Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where they were fining people - in sudden campaigns with several traps appearing for several hours every few months. Favorite traps included cycleways crossing roads, where cyclists were obligated by law to dismount due to missing cyclist crossings. Some routes had such crossing every 200 - 250m, nobody was following that law. I was tagging legal status, and had some discussions with other mappers whatever it is desirable to do it this way. Currently most of missing cyclist crossings are added[1], signs (for example in forests) more commonly explicitly allow bicycles, oneway:bicycle=no is becoming more common at least in some cities... [1] It turned out that blocker was completely idiotic law requiring pedestrian + cyclist crossings to be at least 7 m wide, for smaller ones including cyclist crossing was against rules. > Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see on > the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle" > Not sure what I would do in cases where access law as written and access law as executed would completely diverge. Setup new tags specially to allow to tag both verifiable legal status and verifiable de facto status? bicycle=no bicycle:de_facto=permissive (even bicycle=permissive, bicycle:ignored_law=no would be an improvement over current state of not tagging legal status) It is out of OSM scope but I also had some successes with requests to add missing "except bicycles" under various traffic signs (on average in last years - about one added every month), in some cases it was simpler than inventing fitting tagging scheme for really absurd cases.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
