On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
This recent wiki change by Emvee
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Emvee> is in my view
not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a
wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a
different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is
supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)
The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
<https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265>
No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128>
OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.
Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported
and having a better alternative.
Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is problematic
namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not add that context
but that is something I can do.
Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate osm way
with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a good idea.
Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no
in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.
Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make
it useless.
If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.
And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from
this discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page
I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on the Talk
page I have no problem with reverting for now but think it should be
reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was added.
Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did point
out above.
My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it
does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue
can be deduced from the connecting ways.
Not in cases where
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to
dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where
cyclists
are obligated to dismount
Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.
(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both
sides
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately
mapped
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)
There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for routing
purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way the road. So
these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing context while routers
do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on a node.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
