Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node means
it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate penalty
as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the node. I
know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is used
in combination with highway=crossing.
The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the
case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while
cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"
I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated
in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and
outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not
give "additional possibilities"; by giving the right access rights on
the ways connecting to the node all possible access scenarios can be
covered.
Started this new thread as I just subscribed to the tagging list and I
think this title is more focusing on what is the point but please have a
look at
"meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread for the other side of
the story,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/055611.html
Would be good to get some feedback from others as this has been a (too)
long debate between only me and the of the author of the "meaning of
highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
