[OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
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
Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
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?
[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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] bicycle=no and cycleway=lane conflicting?
2015-04-09 15:00 GMT+02:00 Phil Endecott spam_from_osm_t...@chezphil.org: 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?
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
