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
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,
[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
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
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:
5 matches
Mail list logo