-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bicycle profile - allow bike pushing when bicycle=no and foot=yes #5072
Comments
The way osm tags are defined, bicycle=no forbids bicycles, even if pushed. If pushing should be allowed, bicycle=dismount should be used instead. Unfortunately, this is tagged incorrected many places. |
Note that While roads/footways completely banning even pushing bicycles are quite rare compared to ones where just cycling is not allowed, bicycle=no is far more popular. It is used over 942 000 times together with highway=* while bicycle=dismount just 73 000 times. It indicates that majority of mappers is using bicycle=no to indicate places where pushing bicycle is OK. Even if someone is using bicycle=no with intention to state that pushing/carrying bicycle there is forbidden it is impossible to distinguish bicycle=no mapped with meaning "no cycling" and "no presence of bicycles is allowed". It makes this two tags a de facto equivalent. Usage of
At this point given tag usage I would say that claimed OSM Wiki definition is wrong. Disclaimer: I am one of people discussing on OSM mailing list and very active editor on Wiki (for example I am the sole author of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount ) |
Stale. |
in bike profile, currently if tags disallow bicycle (eg
bicycle=no
) but allow foot (egfoot=yes
), this way/node is blocked from routing.Proposed behaviour if way is disallowed for bicycle and allowed for foot:
bicycle=no
higher penalty thanvehicle=no
route=bicycle
, no huge penalty; consider access tags a tagging error)implementationwise, it would be nice to be able to reach into foot profile and see
access_tags_hierarchy
andaccess_tag_blacklist
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: