Apr 11, 2019, 4:43 PM by vosc...@gmail.com: > In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would > like to bring up. > This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes. > > Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do > not apply here) > "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the > proposed > Default-Access-Restriction for all countries > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions>> > . > bicycle=yes means that cyclists are allowed to use given path. In absence of other tags it may be also considered as a hint that cyclists can comfortably use this path, though it would be better to explicitly tag surface and other relevant info > OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way as a > dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without "bicycle=designated") > or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with "foot=designated" and > "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no "bicycle=yes" or with > "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering which is also used for > "highway=footpath" (see > https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/ > <https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/>> ) > OpenCycleMap is also not supporting oneway:bicycle=no, I would not use it as a documentation of tags > The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use this to > distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ("highway=path" with > "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by tagging them > without "bicycle=yes". > That is quite poor idea and data collected in this way is much less useful than it could be. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale> sounds like a better idea, especially as some people may be interested in extreme difficulty and some in casual. Note that in cases where they remove bicycle=yes for paths where people are allowed to cycle or add bicycle=yes where they are not legally allowed to cycle - they map incorrectly and damage data. > CAI mappers are discussing whether to remove during that operation the > apparently redundant "bicycle=yes" tagging or not. > I would keep them. There are tables with default access on OSM Wiki but it ignores that foot=yes/ bicycle=yes on path are useful indicators that it is not a private path with forbidden entry. As long as correct this tags are useful. > I am sure this has been addressed in the passed and I only have not found > traces of the old discussions. > I have no proposal on how to proceed, but would like hear your opinions about > this. > Do not remove bicycle=yes remotely just because it is on a path, use mtb:scale for tagging paths interesting for mtbers rather than misusing bicycle=yes for marking "interesting mtb route".
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
