Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-04-09 14:00, Phil Endecott wrote:

Maarten Deen wrote:

I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and
cycleway=lane.
IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be
removed. Any thoughts?


"Cycle lanes" that you cannot, either practically or legally, cycle
along are horribly common.  Examples:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/May2009.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2013.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December2013.htm

How would you tag those?

I have no idea if your example falls into that category, is mis-tagged,
or what.


2 of those are not cycle lanes - the 1st and 3rd are paths separate from 
the road. But they are also part of an NCN cycle route.
So they could be tagged as highway=path (or highway=footway), with 
bicycle=no, plus maybe something like bicycle:pushing=yes. Plus adding 
them to the route relation.


I'm not sure what is happening with the second photo, is their a cycle 
lane marked on the road or not?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-09 15:00 GMT+02:00 Phil Endecott :

> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-
> month/December2013.htm
>


this one doesn't seem to prohibit bicycles, it seems to be stroken through?
Is this an official sign?

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

[Phil Endecott]

Maarten Deen wrote:
I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and 
cycleway=lane.
IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be 
removed. Any thoughts?


"Cycle lanes" that you cannot, either practically or legally, cycle
along are horribly common.  Examples:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/May2009.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2013.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December2013.htm

How would you tag those?

I have no idea if your example falls into that category, is mis-tagged,
or what.


Cheers,  Phil.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

[bicycle=no; cycleway=lane] means that there is a lane for bicycles but
cycling is anyway not allowed there.

Typically it would be a tagging mistake, usable cycleway lanes should
be tagged as [cycleway=lane].

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200
Maarten Deen  wrote:

> I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and 
> cycleway=lane. I was using brouter [2] for some bicyclerouting and
> one of the rules for bikerouting there is that bicycle=no means no
> bicycles are allowed.
> IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be 
> removed. Any thoughts?
> 
> [1] 
> [2] 
> 
> Maarten
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?

[Maarten Deen]

I came across this example [1] where a way has bicycle=no and 
cycleway=lane. I was using brouter [2] for some bicyclerouting and one 
of the rules for bikerouting there is that bicycle=no means no bicycles 
are allowed.
IMHO these two tags are also conflicting and the bicycle=no should be 
removed. Any thoughts?


[1] 
[2] 

Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk