When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are then incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The route is not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn directions eventually.
What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or encouraged ? Makes no sense to me. > On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey <j3tra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're > seeing are the implied values (specifically, highway=footway implies > motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll > down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason > sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal > jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take legal > jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for bicycle=*, the > way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=* has defaults on a > uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an arbitrary granularity > (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal, provincial, regional, > or city laws). > > Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking > advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most > sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know > the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine > doesn't. > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca > <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default > value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag defaulted > to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added only to the > odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are talking routing > engines here, not the kid that plays on the street. > >> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bike...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a >> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short >> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be >> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested to >> see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this. >> >> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage >> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default >> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region >> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of >> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people >> developing the routing engines. >> >> Nate Wessel, PhD >> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd >> NateWessel.com <https://www.natewessel.com/> >> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote: >>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa. In Ottawa footpaths that >>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation >>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans >>> bicycles on sidewalks. Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted >>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it >>> might even be NCC which is federal of course. >>> >>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable >>> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries >>> as a letter of interpretation. It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same >>> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of >>> course the PPS. >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM: >>>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being >>>> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of >>>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. >>>> >>>> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to >>>> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the >>>> point. >>>> >>>> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, >>>> <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks >>>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are >>>> starting to do in the Montreal region. >>>> >>>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without >>>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according >>>> to this page: >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions >>>> >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions> >>>> >>>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no >>>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which >>>> is illegal in most part of Canada. >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or >>>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com/> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-ca mailing list >>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca>
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
