On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount). > Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private. > > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle > > The wiki defines bicycle=no the same as access=no, which means no > access. If you have foot=no, that means no access by foot. > > and if you have bicycle=no that means no access by bicycle > It says nothing about access with bicycle (pushed/carried).
I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently. Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that "riding bicycles is not permitted but carrying/pushing is," it said "bicycles." This has been pointed out before. [2][3] In the same table, a distinction is made for values such as bicycle=use_sidepath and bicycle=dismount. If misunderstanding is common [4][5], the only solution is to create new values and deprecate the old ones, as was done for surface=cobblestone. [6] > bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents > > How can you conclude that? > > Based on my experience of how people map such restrictions? > Based on my experience how tags in such situations are processed by data > consumers? > > And it is not just me, see > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9158 The answer on this ticket is specific to Germany. > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/thread.html#15135 Looks like this thread did not reach a conclusion, resulting in no changes to the wiki. Interpretations appear to be divided. To me, it looks like this proposition [7] would have solved all situations, but I see no usage of the proposed tag or other alternatives proposed throughout the discussion. Since 2014, GraphHopper [8] and OSRM [9][10] implement the interpretation of bicycle=dismount as pushing but no riding and bicycle=no as no access whatsoever, not even pushing. No questions so far regarding this interpretation. Bicycle routing using GraphHopper and OSRM has been offered in OSM's main website for a very long time. The UK-based CycleStreets journey planner also implements this interpretation. [11] Some guys on brouter [12] agree with you, but brouter profiles still assign a very high cost when bicycle=no [13]. You should probably note that those remarks were made 3 years after brouter has offered bicycle routing with the current interpretation. If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this in applications such as OSRM, GraphHopper, brouter and others. That said, I do not oppose changes to clarify this situation. First we need either proper tagging scheme or a change of definitions that embraces all situations mentioned so far, then we need to ask developers to change their routing profiles to avoid confusion among mappers and users. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&oldid=1965874#Bicycle_Restrictions [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015308.html [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount&oldid=1919911 [4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015315.html [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015356.html [6] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61042 [7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-October/015276.html [8] https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/695 [9] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/78 [10] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5072 [11] https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/#toc9 [12] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79 [13] https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/226 -- Fernando Trebien _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
