Talk:Tag:bicycle=dismount

Hi, after reading this article with all the arguments against it's own purpose I have to say that I still don't get why one should stick to bicycle=no. bicycle=dismount is in my opinion a perfect fit for a section of a biking lane, where you are only allowed to push the bike. Why should you use a tag instead which also implements that bicycles are forbidden at all? Every routing engine is excluding a knot with this tag because it is a main purpose of the bicycle=no tag.

best regards Christian

"Every routing engine is excluding a knot with this tag" can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean that bicycle routing treats nodes with bicycle=no as barriers? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"bicycle=dismount is in my opinion a perfect fit for a section of a biking lane, where you are only allowed to push the bike" - it is fine to use it this way - the only problem is when someone claims that bicycle=no in practice has different meaning than bicycle=dismount Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You made this comment with edit description "content of article is misleading" - which specific part is misleading? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the fast response. I made some testing with OsmAnd and OSRM and both are treating nodes with bicycle=no as barriers.

Here a bridge tagged with bicycle=no

https://routing.openstreetmap.de/?z=18&center=53.307365%2C13.148564&loc=53.306826%2C13.146837&loc=53.307663%2C13.149675&hl=en&alt=0&srv=1

and a bridge with bicycle=dismount

https://routing.openstreetmap.de/?z=16&center=53.551476%2C13.247967&loc=53.547805%2C13.250220&loc=53.554943%2C13.244920&hl=en&alt=0&srv=1

I would say the article is misleading mainly in it's conclusion that bicycle=no is the common way of tagging the scenario because it has a higher usage statistic. I would say the higher number is due to a broader use case. I learned this topic is well discussed but is it wrong to use bicycle=no for a scenario where even pushing the bike is not allowed? I'd say a lot of mapper using it to clearify that one shouldn't use a bike at all and to solve known routing issues. At least I have the impression if I look up the tag.

Not sure if it helps as a reference

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jno

"I would say the higher number is due to a broader use case" - no, cases where you cannot push bicycle are much rarer than cases where you cannot cycle but you can push it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"is it wrong to use bicycle=no for a scenario where even pushing the bike is not allowed?" - no, but "even pushing the bike is not allowed" is not expresssed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"no, cases where you cannot push bicycle are much rarer than cases where you cannot cycle but you can push it" Hi, that is maybe true but it is not used like that in practice I would say. It seems to me that it's used like motor_vehicle=no. That's why routing engines interpret the tag as a barrier because it is often used for that. I wouldn't recommend to use bicycle=no as a representation of a situation where you have to push the bike a few meters. It's already a very fuzzy tag. --Chribre (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"I wouldn't recommend to use bicycle=no as a representation of a situation where you have to push the bike a few meters. It's already a very fuzzy tag" - well, it is not changing that it is widely used in this way Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"It seems to me that it's used like motor_vehicle=no" - what you mean here? Note that in case of cars and even motorcycles carrying/pushing them to bypass some barrier is quite unusual Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hi, that is maybe true but it is not used like that in practice I would say" - why you think so? Note that bicycle=dismount was introduced when bicycle=no was already in a wide use Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Would new tags like "bicycle:riding=no" and "bicycle:walking=no" be a solution?--Pbb (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Other usage

On the German OSM it is relatively common to use the distinction bicycle=dismount/bicycle=no not to signify if pushing the bicycle is allowed but if pushing the bicycle is "recommended". For example imagine there is a narrow tunnel on a bicycle route where you're required to dismount (by signs). Tagging bicycle=no would tell routers that you're not allowed to cycle on this route and so they would probably simply not allow/recommend this route. "bicycle=dismount" is sometimes used on such short sections telling the router that you have to dismount there, but it's probably still okay to use this as a bicycle route (with some penalty perhaps).

For the purpose of tagging if carrying/pushing a bike is allowed, I think we would need special new keys/values as two values aren't enough. For example you could be forbidden to push a bike, but carrying it might be okay. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am also wondering about this case of recommended use. In Norway, it's legal use a pedestrian crossing while riding a bike, but you have to give way to all other traffic. If a car hits a cyclist riding on a pedestrian crossing, then the cyclist is at fault. But if you dismount, then you have priority and cars have to give way. This is a very clear indication that dismount is recommended, even though it's not required. A tag like "bicycle:walking=recommended" could indicate this.--Pbb (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Practical restrictions?

There are situations where, even though riding a bicycle is not explicitly prohibited, it would be more practical or even necessary for most cyclists to dismount. Examples include short sets of stairs, informal paths crossing railway tracks, or footbridges with longitudinal gaps between boards where a bicycle wheel could easily slip through. From a router’s perspective, these segments might be treated the same as legally mandated dismount zones. However, under the current definition, bicycle=dismount is meant only for explicit legal or signposted restrictions - not practical or safety-based considerations. Should the use of this tag be broadened to include such cases, or would a separate tagging approach be more appropriate? --VileGecko (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally would tag stairs as stairs, unguarded rail crossings as unguarded rail crossings and so on and let routers figure out what to do with it. To me it doesn't make sense to tag bicycle=dismount or bicycle=no on stairs and similar obstacles, especially if there is no explicit sign. That would just be spam and kinda repeating the default assumed value. --Jonathan Haas (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate. In such case adding the barrier=* which results in requiring the rider to dismount is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miklcct (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 June 2025

From Key:access: "Access tags pre-eminently describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth, such as signage combined with legal regulation, rather than guesswork. They do not describe common or typical use, even if the signage is generally ignored." This is the general rule. Wouldn't it be confusing if the dismount tag were an exception? --Hufkratzer (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)