What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node means
it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate penalty
as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the node. I
know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is used
in combination with highway=crossing.

The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the
case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while
cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"

I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated
in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and
outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not
give "additional possibilities"; by giving the right access rights on
the ways connecting to the node all possible access scenarios can be
covered.

Started this new thread as I just subscribed to the tagging list and I
think this title is more focusing on what is the point but please have a
look at
"meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread for the other side of
the story,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/055611.html

Would be good to get some feedback from others as this has been a (too)
long debate between only me and the of the author of the "meaning of
highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Georg Feddern-2


Am 07.10.2020 um 23:01 schrieb Emvee via Tagging:
> Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node
> means it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate
> penalty as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the
> node. I know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Really just by bicycle=no on a node?
It does not check for barrier=* first?
I think that would be a bad idea.

> Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is
> used in combination with highway=crossing.

At least I think so.

> The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the
> case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while
> cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"

I think so. The main tag ist highway=crossing.
I see this as common practice (for whom this crossing is meant).

> I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated
> in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and
> outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not
> give "additional possibilities";

You can check the simple node context - as a bicycle=no (should) never
stand alone on a node.

> by giving the right access rights on the ways connecting to the node
> all possible access scenarios can be covered.

That can be a solution for crossings.

Georg



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



Oct 7, 2020, 23:01 by [hidden email]:

The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"

I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and outgoing way)
I agree that splitting way and having short section as footway is also correct tagging and
making data processing easier for router.

Though harder for other data consumers, for example detecting
of places where bicycle crossing should be created would be significantly harder.

But many highway=crossing bicycle=no exists and OSM Wiki should document that also this
tagging scheme is used and what is its meaning as used by mappers.

What kind of tagging should be recommended/deprecated is a separate issue.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list

> I agree that splitting way and having short section as footway is also
> correct tagging and
> making data processing easier for router.

Normally splitting is not needed but yes, for uncommon/strange
situations the part of the way that is actually crossing the way can be
tagged with the needed access tags.

It not only makes it easier, brouter does currently does not support
evaluating access on a node in the context of the incoming and outgoing
way. I think that holds for other routers using openstreetmap data.

> Though harder for other data consumers, for example detecting
> of places where bicycle crossing should be created would be
> significantly harder.

Good to think about data consumers!

The largest consumers of this data by far are routers. I do not see any
time soon and likely never other use as the majority of crossing is
still not mapped with highway=crossing/crossing=* and even the crossing
mapped such very few have bicycle=*

So make the life of routers hard/impossible while optimizing for some
future, imaginary data use?

> But many highway=crossing bicycle=no exists and OSM Wiki should
> document that also this
> tagging scheme is used and what is its meaning as used by mappers.

Yes, it exists (although marginally) but by documenting it is implicitly
recommended and in this case it was explicitly recommended.

Or ... will somebody start documenting that routing a pedestrian/bicycle
route over a way that is not accessible is a good idea? (60.000
problems, see http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=3240)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Georg Feddern-2
In reply to this post by Georg Feddern-2
Am 10.10.2020 um 20:16 schrieb Emvee:

>
>>> Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node
>>> means it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate
>>> penalty as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the
>>> node. I know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see
>>> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>> Really just by bicycle=no on a node?
>> It does not check for barrier=* first?
>> I think that would be a bad idea.
>
> The check is just on bicycle=, see the end of
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf 
>
>
> In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding
> Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node
> context.
>
>>> Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is
>>> used in combination with highway=crossing.
>> At least I think so.
>>> The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes
>>> the case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road
>>> while cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"
>> I think so. The main tag ist highway=crossing.
>
> I see nothing like this mentioned on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.
>
> Do you know any other combination a tag with an access tag on a node
> that means something else depending on from which way you enter it and
> leave it?
>
> I think you suggest ("It does not check for barrier=* first?") to have a
> bicycle router ignore bicycle=* on nodes except in combination with
> barrier=*. That would mean one could just remove bicycle=* as it is
> largely useless, see my response on "other data consumers" elsewhere in
> this thread.
>
>> I see this as common practice (for whom this crossing is meant).
>
> An educated guess is that there are 3000 crossings mapped incorrectly
> with bicycle=no of the 4.5 million crossings mapped, that is 0.07%. Much
> less of a problem than other problems.
>
>>> by giving the right access rights on the ways connecting to the node
>>> all possible access scenarios can be covered.
>> That can be a solution for crossings.
>
> It is a "solution" that makes bicycle=no on highway is crossing
> unnecessary.
>

How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=<street>
without a crossing highway=<anything_but_street> because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?

Sorry:
Why does my email program send the saving draft while I am still writing
... does matter only to osm lists ... without asking for the outgoing
password - heaven!

--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM <[hidden email]> wrote:

How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=<street>
without a crossing highway=<anything_but_street> because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?

I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that came to mind for me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508 is a street view of the crossing in question.

Don't excoriate me for the `highway=path`. That's what the mappers around here do for a shared-foot-and-cycleway. I tried once, after a scolding here, retagging it as `highway=cycleway foot=designated shared=yes`. Other locals reverted.


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Georg Feddern-2

In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding
Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node context.
I was looking for where this first appeared and I failed (maybe it was quoted from start),
but this claim is untrue


Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to mean?
(I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I guessed correctly)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM <[hidden email]> wrote:

How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=<street>
without a crossing highway=<anything_but_street> because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?

I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that came to mind for me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508 is a street view of the crossing in question.
That is a perfect solution that is even better then it would be as mapping the crossing node because now the router can make a good estimate based on the length on what travel time it takes, that is not possible with a node.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

voschix


On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:

I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that came to mind for me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508 is a street view of the crossing in question.
That is a perfect solution that is even better then it would be as mapping the crossing node because now the router can make a good estimate based on the length on what travel time it takes, that is not possible with a node.

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way. This was described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee by addng the diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a longish explanation.
(I also moved the two stops away from the end nodes of the ways as the tag direction=forward|backward is better not placed on a node that connects two ways )

This recent wiki change by Emvee is in my view not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

Volker
(Italy)

Virus-free. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way. This was described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee by addng the diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a longish explanation.
(I also moved the two stops away from the end nodes of the ways as the tag direction=forward|backward is better not placed on a node that connects two ways )

Both of those are better, thanks! 

The routers that I use for testing seem to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to tag them.

Having the STOP signs tagged as I did works, since 'direction=forward' means 'when approaching this node on the forward direction of any connecting way', but your method is more robust against inadvertently reversing one way and not the other.

This recent wiki change by Emvee is in my view not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

I'm posting from a smartphone, so I'm not in a good position to review the change log. I'll let you and Emvee sort it out.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by voschix


sent from a phone

On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several carriageways are present).

The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.


And became successively popular:


The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing&oldid=1093129#Node_or_line

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list



15 paź 2020, 09:42 od [hidden email]:
Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings
Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk 
together with pedestrians and cross road 
using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are
allowed but on crossing with road one
is supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=no
on crossings?

(All happen sometimes with cyclists)

, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by voschix
This recent wiki change by Emvee is in my view not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced from the connecting ways.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list

> Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to
> mean?
> (I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I
> guessed correctly)

In node context means that the router only looks at the data belong to
the node to decide what costs to add.

See also the end of
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf
under the comment:

---context:node # following code refers to node tags


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list

Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings
Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?

Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node?

, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).
Agreed.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:46 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several carriageways are present).

For the specific way that Volker was discussing,  the situation was a stand-alone shared-use foot/cycleway crossing a tertiary highway. Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction. No kerbs anywhere.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Georg Feddern-2
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list

Am 15.10.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Emvee via Tagging:
This recent wiki change by Emvee is in my view not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced from the connecting ways.


We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped with tags at the highway=<street> with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?

Virenfrei. www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



Oct 15, 2020, 22:30 by [hidden email]:

Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings
Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?

Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node?

I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on footways with bicycle=no or
where bicycle=no is implied

It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway crossing road and are obligated to
dismount if crossing road at that point. (and yes, in most cases, though not all, it can be retagged as
access tagging on way)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by [hidden email]:
This recent wiki change by Emvee is in my view not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in

OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported and having a better alternative.

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing data is far from being complete.

Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make it useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from this discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced from the connecting ways.

Not in cases where
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where cyclists
are obligated to dismount
(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both sides
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately mapped
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 00:00, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction.


at this point there is no shared way anymore, just nearby it is shared, because bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle no, it means pedestrians only.

Ciao Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12