In the particular instance a public road makes an end-on connection with
a private unadopted road, although both have the same name. It is just
about possible for pedal bicycles to get through, although I suspect it
is not intended.
At present I have it has two separate barriers =fence with a short
length of footpath between them. But clearly it is in fact a single
construction. And fence suggests a total barrier, so connecting a
footpath to a fence doesn't make sense.
If you don't like barrier=cycle_barrier, there's also barrier=chicane - I'd consider barrier=cycle_barrier to be a subset of barrier=chicane. But then you'd definitely need to provide comprehensive access tags.
On 10/08/2018 15:08, Edward Catmur wrote:
> Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
> made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
Ok, will do. It's just that if you asked the residents I don't think
they intended it primarily to deter furious cycling. Its purpose is
clearly to prevent through motor traffic.
On the other hand there must have been some reason for the double row of
railings. But you could stand there all day and not see a cyclist. It's
a residential area, not on a route from anywhere to anywhere else. And
there is plenty of room for an occasional cyclist and pedestrians to
p.s. they are usually galvanised steel, not aluminium.