May 27, 2020, 18:36 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien <> > fernando.treb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > Most people who ride bikes will want to avoided any places where dismounting > is required. It is usually faster to take a different route. Only rarely will > it be worthwhile to use a way with bicycle=dismount >
For routing purposes "you may not pass at all" and "you must dismount" are very close, closer than most non-cyclists would expect. I am cycling a lot, also in places with bizarre rules and at times with poor cycling infrastructure and only in extreme cases it makes sense to take route that requires dismounting anywhere. Also, I use http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=15/50.0670/19.9445/standard as a primary router that was mentioned to allow route through also bicycle=no. And routing results are obnoxiously hard to debug properly, I run multiple times into quite stupid results and tracked down root case only where it was clearly OSM data problem (car routing leaving motorway because there was gap in it etc)
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
