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

2015-04-09 Thread 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

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

2015-04-09 Thread 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,

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

2015-04-09 Thread 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 md...@xs4all.nl wrote: I came across

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

2015-04-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

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

2015-04-09 Thread 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: