Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
Ok, I've been there and surveyed and it is clear. It is a pedestrian area with a subsign bicycles and buses allowed. That means that the tag cycleway=lane needs to be removed and the tag bus=yes added I would still at least tell the original mapper why you changed it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
On 2015-04-09 15:34, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2015-04-09 15:15, Volker Schmidt wrote: 2) have you talked to the user mritz who put the bicycle=no tag there? He may know the local situation. I haven't. I have cycled this street myself last year and in my recollection there is no lane and cycling is allowed. But the question for me at this moment is not is this situation mapped correctly but what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles. Ok, I've been there and surveyed and it is clear. It is a pedestrian area with a subsign bicycles and buses allowed. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
Please also check horse=no and access=permissive on this way (if you lost it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327). Especially horses. I think that's the drawback of listing all possible tags in editors, and people feeling obliged to answer them all. Perhaps we should create a farmer lobby to insert cow=yes/no/permissive tag in all editors, especially iD. And prohibit change uploading if unanswered. JB. Le 09/04/2015 15:34, Maarten Deen a écrit : On 2015-04-09 15:15, Volker Schmidt wrote: 1) For me there is no a-priori conflict: according to the tagging, this is a pedestrian street, where you cannot ride your bicycle, except on a cycle lane which is somewhere on this pedestrian street. Why should a pedestrian street not have a bicycle lane like any other street. Or am I missing something? This is my issue. As Phil pointed out, there may be cyclelanes that are prohibited for bicycles. But what does bicycle=no and cycleway=lane mean? Usually cycleway=lane means that there is a lane on the way that is accesible for bicyles. But putting bicycle=no on that way IMHO means that routing for bicycles on that way is prohibited, irregardless of there being a bicyclelane. So not like your example. 2) have you talked to the user mritz who put the bicycle=no tag there? He may know the local situation. I haven't. I have cycled this street myself last year and in my recollection there is no lane and cycling is allowed. But the question for me at this moment is not is this situation mapped correctly but what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles. Maarten Message: 8 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200 From: Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 9be720d7ddc344ffa3a382b224a4d...@xs4all.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1] [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2] Maarten -- Message: 9 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:51:34 +0200 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 20150409115134.7b67a6d2@Grisznak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [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 md...@xs4all.nl 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1] [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2] Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3] -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3] -- End of talk Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Links: -- [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
2015-04-09 15:34 GMT+02:00 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl: but what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles. IMHO it says there is a bicycle lane, but you cannot use it by bike (as you can't use any of the lanes by bike, including those for cars). Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
1) For me there is no a-priori conflict: according to the tagging, this is a pedestrian street, where you cannot ride your bicycle, except on a cycle lane which is somewhere on this pedestrian street. Why should a pedestrian street not have a bicycle lane like any other street. Or am I missing something? 2) have you talked to the user mritz who put the bicycle=no tag there? He may know the local situation. Volker Padova, Italy Message: 8 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200 From: Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 9be720d7ddc344ffa3a382b224a4d...@xs4all.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ Maarten -- Message: 9 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:51:34 +0200 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 20150409115134.7b67a6d2@Grisznak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [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 md...@xs4all.nl 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- End of talk Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
On 2015-04-09 15:15, Volker Schmidt wrote: 1) For me there is no a-priori conflict: according to the tagging, this is a pedestrian street, where you cannot ride your bicycle, except on a cycle lane which is somewhere on this pedestrian street. Why should a pedestrian street not have a bicycle lane like any other street. Or am I missing something? This is my issue. As Phil pointed out, there may be cyclelanes that are prohibited for bicycles. But what does bicycle=no and cycleway=lane mean? Usually cycleway=lane means that there is a lane on the way that is accesible for bicyles. But putting bicycle=no on that way IMHO means that routing for bicycles on that way is prohibited, irregardless of there being a bicyclelane. So not like your example. 2) have you talked to the user mritz who put the bicycle=no tag there? He may know the local situation. I haven't. I have cycled this street myself last year and in my recollection there is no lane and cycling is allowed. But the question for me at this moment is not is this situation mapped correctly but what does this combination of tags mean for bicycles. Maarten Message: 8 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:03:42 +0200 From: Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 9be720d7ddc344ffa3a382b224a4d...@xs4all.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1] [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2] Maarten -- Message: 9 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:51:34 +0200 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting? Message-ID: 20150409115134.7b67a6d2@Grisznak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [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 md...@xs4all.nl 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] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [1] [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [2] Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3] -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [3] -- End of talk Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Links: -- [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12823327 [2] http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
