On 12/07/2015 21:26, Martin Norbäck Olivers wrote: > There are some places where that tag would be appropriate I think. But > not just because there is a cycle path nearby.
Why not? > I'm thinking highways outside the city with an adjacent cycle path. Highways (if you mean motorways) imply 'bicycle=no' so you can't use the tag, according to the proposal. > But I guess there could be a case for these tags, although they would > have to be changed when the law changes. Would it not be better to keep > these things separate from osm? Tag what's on the ground, not in the law > books? True, and I agree, although it's possible to argue that almost all instances of access tags are about the intersection of the law and what's in the ground — the signs usually tell if something is different from the "law defaults". In this specific example, it could also be argued that this is encoding what's on the ground since the "D4: påbjuden cykelbana" sign is saying exactly that the cycleway is the mandatory way for cyclists and it's not allowed to use the road (barring the exceptions). If the sign was not there that wouldn't be the case. Is it that different from a max speed sign or a "no parking", or "no heavy vehicles" sign? I'm not necessarily arguing here that all roads should be changed, or I'm going to do start doing that right now. I just wanted to know if there's any consensus in the SE community about that because this was discussed to death in the DE and NL mailing lists and they concluded that "cycleway=use_sidepath" would be useful, there was a proposal and it was approved and it became "official" — so my original question is if Sweden is one of the countries with the so called "compulsory cycleways"? If no, in what way is Sweden different than Germany or Netherlands? If yes, what do people here think about the approved proposal? Personally, I do think the proposal is useful and if people are interested I can further explain my reasoning. However, I would have preferred if there was an official way of creating a relation between the cycleway and the road, so the same information could be inferred by having a road related to a path tagged as "bicycle=designated" (default for cycleways). That would not require an extra tag and in case the law changes only the inference needs to change, not the tagging. Unfortunately that was not the approach that was approved; they seemed to have chosen a more pragmatic one. By the way, why is Sweden not listed here? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Did nobody care or is there no local consensus about what the default is? It would help foreign mappers such as myself if the information was there (I could not find it even in the Swedish pages). I would edit the wiki myself if I knew what they are. // Leonardo. > > söndag 12 juli 2015 skrev Leonardo Brondani Schenkel > <leona...@schenkel.net <mailto:leona...@schenkel.net>>: > > On 12/07/2015 18:47, Martin Norbäck Olivers wrote: > > Yes you must use the cycle path but that law will probably soon > change. > > > > You are allowed to use the road if it's better for your destination, > > whatever that means. So it's not against the law to use the road > and so > > it should not be tagged as such. > > > > A routing app for bicycles should be clever enough to use the bike > path > > anyway. > > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the quick reply. If I understood you correctly, then Sweden > would qualify as one of the countries having "compulsory cycleways" as > defined at the wiki: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath > > I do understand that there are scenarios that authorize you to use the > road, and that's why bicycle="use_sidepath" is not the same as > bicycle="no". Are you objecting to the latter or to the former as well? > > P.S.: I don't really get why the law says you *must* use the cycle path > and at the same time allows you to use the road. This means to me that > in practice the use of the cycle path is encouraged, but not really > mandatory (if hypothetically the police stops you, you could always > argue that "it was better for your destination", couldn't you?). > > // Leonardo. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-se mailing list > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-se mailing list > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > _______________________________________________ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
