Talk:Key:bicycle
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Gallery
@Emvee: I don't see the connection between the photos you added and this tag. Could you add tagging to the captions of these photos? maro21 16:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Above the newly added gallery there is "In combination with barriers, guidepost, fords and maps:", does that answer your question? -- Emvee (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, because I don't see the connection between [bicycle=*] and how it can be used with these objects.
- 1st photo [guidepost] - I don't see how legal access for bicycles can be used with information=guidepost. But I checked the page Tag:information=guidepost and indeed there is this tag there. But I don't know why this tag there. Bicycle=yes means legal access for bikes, the guidepost probably contains information about bicycle route or sth similar and there this tag should be used.
- 2nd photo [ford] - This is an ordinary road, and on such roads bicycle traffic is allowed by default. I don't see how the [bicycle] key would be used here and with what value
- 3rd photo [barrier] - do you mean a node with barrier=* and bicycle=yes here? If so, this is ok.
- 4th photo [barrier] - looks like a barrier for cars, so bicycle=yes would be ok here.
- 5th photo [map] - the same question as in the 1st one.
- 6th photo - what is it? This is also another reason why I need tagging here. maro21 17:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- And what's exactly wrong with using bicycle=yes outside of strictly legal meaning? We need a tag for a guideposts, maps and other infrastructure that means "this one is dedicated for cyclists", and this does the job – is there an alternative tag? As long as a tag combination is unique, has a specific meaning (and I don't see how else an information=guidepost + bicycle=yes could be interpreted) and actually used by mappers, it should be documented in Wiki.
There's the related hiking=* with a similar purpose, but I don't think we should invent cycling=* if bicycle=* does the job just fine. Duja (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- "And what's exactly wrong with using bicycle=yes outside of strictly legal meaning?" It makes this tag more confusing and more likely to be misused for "this is suitable for cyclists". Though if there is widespread actual use it may make sense to document it, even if it is a terrible idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the terribleness=* range of 1-5, I would place it at 2 (slightly_terrible). A bit skunked, but it does not really conflict with anything else.
I ran an Overpass query for nwr["information"="guidepost"]["bicycle"] ( https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1JxY ) over a bbox containing most of the EU and it returned over 90,000 results (some with yes, some with no). That certainly deserves being documented. Duja (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the terribleness=* range of 1-5, I would place it at 2 (slightly_terrible). A bit skunked, but it does not really conflict with anything else.
- "And what's exactly wrong with using bicycle=yes outside of strictly legal meaning?" It makes this tag more confusing and more likely to be misused for "this is suitable for cyclists". Though if there is widespread actual use it may make sense to document it, even if it is a terrible idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- And what's exactly wrong with using bicycle=yes outside of strictly legal meaning? We need a tag for a guideposts, maps and other infrastructure that means "this one is dedicated for cyclists", and this does the job – is there an alternative tag? As long as a tag combination is unique, has a specific meaning (and I don't see how else an information=guidepost + bicycle=yes could be interpreted) and actually used by mappers, it should be documented in Wiki.
- No, because I don't see the connection between [bicycle=*] and how it can be used with these objects.
oneway
"bicycle:forward=* and bicycle:backward=* can be used if restrictions apply only in one direction."
In which case this is better than using oneway:bicycle=*? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not really my area, but, for example, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=865445207517957 shows a one-way residential street with a one-way bicycle lane running in the opposite direction. That would presumably be a highway=residential; oneway=yes; cycleway:left=lane; bicycle:backward=yes; bicycle:forward=no;... well, not exactly. However, it seems that the current tagging oneway:bicycle=no specifies it's a two-way cycle lane, and the asphalt markings do not show that. Duja (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- oneway:bicycle=no is 100% fine in such case as overall road is two-way for cyclists. In fact such road with a contraflow lane is a typical case where oneway:bicycle=no is used (another typical case is where contraflow is allowed without marked lane) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at OSM data and edited page a bit to help with it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Discouraged
Can we please give a decent, plausible example where discouraged can be used, or get rid of the entry otherwise? I'm having hard time to imagine signage to the effect "discouraged, but permitted" would look like. I understand that Mateusz is wary of restrictions mapped just because they're "disliked by osm mappers", but perhaps we could find a middle ground. Duja (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Taginfo gives only ~1500 instances of bicycle=discouraged worldwide, mostly in Europe. I spot-checked several of those. Mostly, those are on country-side tracks and paths with apparently difficult terrain (steep, sandy or muddy); there's a highway=trunk section near Hannover, where it's likely dangerous to bike along with vehicles running 100 km/h. The closest thing to "signposted" I found is this footway near Munich, with a description left by the kindly mapper. Duja (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
