21 Oct 2020, 22:00 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>
>
Why?
>
> 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.
>
Yes. But the entire thread was started due
to wiki edit redefining already tagged data.
I am open to describing way splitting as
preferable, but not to redefining existing tagging.
>
>
>>
>> (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.
>
>
But given road may be obstacle to be crossed
with user desiring to get to other side
>
> 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
