Talk:Tag:bicycle road=yes
In Poland there are some de facto bicycle roads with all vehicles forbidden, except bicycles on a normal road. Sometimes also residents have access. Should it be tagged as bicycle_road=yes or is it reserved for road with explicit sign mentioning bicycle road by name? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think this also applies to your problem. The sign can also be another. --geozeisig (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, please, use "normal" access tags. It is comparable with motorroad=* and living_street=* aka highway=living_street. bicycle_road=* is an official regulation with own sign and own rules, e.g. it is allowed to drive next to each other, in Germany. This can imply access restrictions, like nowadays vehicle=no in Germany but this is not the criteria. --Skyper (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
cycleway=cyclestreet
What is the difference with cycleway=cyclestreet ? Michiel1972 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Motorcar routing in bicycle roads
According to the wiki, "vehicle=no" is implied on bicycle roads in Germany. I tried several routers, osrm, ors, graphhopper, OSMand, there is not one that actually respects this. They all happily route cars over bicycle roads unless these are equipped with an explicit tag such as vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no. What's the point of implicit tags if routers agree to not care about them?
Can we add to the wiki a strong recommendation to add the vehicle=no tag? (Of course, only if there is no additional sign allowing cars.) --Limes12 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that such tags would benefit from explicit tags rather than weird implication. Though note that vehicle=no would require bicycle=yes to override it and [[Key:motor_vehicle}no|motor_vehicle}no]]=* will forbid also mofa, moped, motorcycles and so on, not only cars Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it does require such a tag for bicycles, but there is a general recommendation to add "bicycle=designated" in bicycle roads. (Again, this is said to be implicit, but who knows what routers make of this.) I don't think I have seen a way with a "bicycle_road=yes" tag which did not carry this tag. About mofas, motorcycles, etc.: Bicycle roads are - without additional signs - to be used solely by bicycles (and pedestrians on the sidewalk), no mofas, no motorcycles, etc. So, "vehicle=no" would be correct in that case. (I wrote motorcars in the title only for the sake of illustration.) "motor_vehicle=yes", if appropriate, overwrites this except that carriages remain forbidden. (I have no clue whether horses are allowed in bicycle roads.)--Limes12 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice the major difference between bicycle_road=* and cyclestreet=* seems to be the implied access tag, see Difference_to_bicycle_road.
Probably, need to adapt the JOSM-preset with a label. --Skyper (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice the major difference between bicycle_road=* and cyclestreet=* seems to be the implied access tag, see Difference_to_bicycle_road.
- Yes, it does require such a tag for bicycles, but there is a general recommendation to add "bicycle=designated" in bicycle roads. (Again, this is said to be implicit, but who knows what routers make of this.) I don't think I have seen a way with a "bicycle_road=yes" tag which did not carry this tag. About mofas, motorcycles, etc.: Bicycle roads are - without additional signs - to be used solely by bicycles (and pedestrians on the sidewalk), no mofas, no motorcycles, etc. So, "vehicle=no" would be correct in that case. (I wrote motorcars in the title only for the sake of illustration.) "motor_vehicle=yes", if appropriate, overwrites this except that carriages remain forbidden. (I have no clue whether horses are allowed in bicycle roads.)--Limes12 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
it should be moved to bicycle_road=yes
This is a tag bicycle_road=yes, not a key, it should be moved, because the page describes this tag. maro21 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Checked its other values through tagInfo and I agree with you. This page is specific to bicycle_road=yes which represents 99 % of its uses. There aren’t any real value used otherwise and those may require further description in case of confusion with cycleway=* (which seems to be the case as of now). --Lejun (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved 13:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
tagging as highway=cycleway
@SimonPoole: You have removed the following sentences from the page:
Note: In Germany, the use of highway=cycleway in combination with bicycle_road=yes is incorrect. A bicycle road may be used by pedestrians (on the sidewalk, if present, otherwise on the road), a cycleway can only be used by bicycles.
Your reasoning in the editing summary was:
While it is true that in Germany legally highway=cycleway can only by cyclist, this can naturally be modified in the modelling by other tags, such as foot=yes, or as in this case bicycle_road=yes which implies pedestrian access.
The problem with this tagging is, that it misses the point about what a bicycle road is. As the name already implies, a bicycle road is not a path (like a cycleway) but a road. It has all the properties of a usual road (it has a smooth surface, it is usually wider than 2 meters, it may be used by pedestrians (on a sidewalk, if present), it has a speed limit), the only difference being, that it is usually not allowed to be used by motor vehicles. If motor vehicle access is allowed by an additional sign, you only have to add motor_vehicle=yes to the way in OSM and all the other tags are still correct.
A cycleway is not a road. It is a path, that may or may not be belonging to a road being parallel to it. It is usually less than 2 meters wide, it often has not a smooth surface but paving stones, it cannot be used by pedestrians and it is in Germany legally not possible to allow motor vehicle or pedestrians access to a cycleway.
It does not make sense to use highway=cycleway to then add tags that remove the one defining property of a cycleway: That it is exclusively for bicycles. -- Discostu36 (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to be totally at odds with reality both outside of, and in OSM. Access to and use of cycleways is modified all the time in the real world and German law [1] explicitly allows for access to both cycleways and "bicyle_roads" to be modified to allow for other use (so you last statement does not correspond to reality either). As I pointed out your view seems to be formed by the some times dismal bicycle infrastructure in Germany, smooth and wide (> 2m) cycleways are quite a normal thing, and except if a way actually provides functionality that you normally wouldn't expect from a cycleway (for example residential access) I see no reason to not use highway=cycleway as the base way classification. SimonPoole (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- hw=cycleway is used only for paths signed with VZ 237 in Germany. This is why it is incorrect to use hw=cycleway for bicycle roads and also explains why the deleted sentence can still be found on the German wiki. Most German mappers who map bicycle roads know this and a mapping hw=cycleway+bicycle:road=yes gets corrected quickly. So, I don't think it is necessary to have the sentence here. Limes12 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)