Modify

Opened 4 weeks ago

Last modified 3 weeks ago

#16242 new enhancement

JOSM validation, suggested warning: "way with bicycle=no is part of a bicycle route relation".

Reported by: AnkEric Owned by: team
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Core validator Version:
Keywords: Cc:

Description (last modified by Klumbumbus)

Already in relation.mapcss:
JOSM validation, warning: "way with bicycle=use_sidepath is part of a bicycle route relation".

Also suggested:
JOSM validation, warning: "way with bicycle=no is part of a bicycle route relation".

Attachments (0)

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 4 weeks ago by Klumbumbus

Component: CoreCore validator
Description: modified (diff)

Bicyle routes may include very short parts where bicyclists are not allowed to ride and must dismount, e.g. pedestrian underpasses. So if we add the test for bicycle=no too then we should maybe skip short (<75m?) ways .

comment:2 Changed 4 weeks ago by AnkEric

Even a short way (<1m) having [bicycle=no] will stop a router from navigating this bicycle route.
So a Warning (not an Error) is justified, even for short ways.
It might be advisable to set [bicyle=dismount] if "bicyclists are not allowed to ride and must dismount". Which is common and good practice.
Also [bicycle=use_sidepath] is less restrictieve than [bicycle=no] is. [Bicycle=no] has no room for exceptions ("no" is "no"), so a warning is even more justified.

comment:3 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 3 weeks ago by Klumbumbus

Replying to AnkEric:

Even a short way (<1m) having [bicycle=no] will stop a router from navigating this bicycle route.

Thats the decision of the router if it will route there or not. Bicycle routers even route along steps (https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/390).

It might be advisable to set [bicyle=dismount] if "bicyclists are not allowed to ride and must dismount". Which is common and good practice.

There was no clear consensus about this tag in the past (#9158). However maybe it could be reconsidered.

Also [bicycle=use_sidepath] is less restrictieve than [bicycle=no] is.

No, in detail it may depend a bit on the specific laws of the country, however bicycle=use_sidepath ususally means that you have to use the sidepath and are not allowed to use the main road. Therefore these are usually only longer sections.

[Bicycle=no] has no room for exceptions ("no" is "no"), so a warning is even more justified.

A bicycle route is rather a signposted recommendation where you could do a nice bicycle tour on your sunday afternoon and has nothing to do with the laws which sections are allowed to ride with the bicycle. Of cause it makes sense to use mainly cycleways but a route may contain also short sections where cycling is not allowed e.g. to avoid long dertours.

comment:4 Changed 3 weeks ago by AnkEric

Everything is a router decision. If a router decides to allow for bicycle routing over water than that's possible.
But for a good bicycle router it makes more sense to only route over steps having [ramp=yes], to avoid [bicycle=use_sidepath] and to block routing over [bicycle=no] sections.

[bicycle=use_sidepath] is less restrictieve than [bicycle=no] is. [bicycle=use_sidepath] was created to mitigate non-acceptable [bicycle=no] where exceptions to the rule are possible/allowed/necessary.
A bicycle route has nothing to do with law. But cycling where [bicycle=no] applies (traffic_sign!) is an offence and therefore not allowed. So routing a bicyle route over a bicycle section having bicycle=no or bicycle=use_sidepath is at least unlikely. Therefore a Warning and not an Error.

My main argument: JOSM is now warning for [bicycle=use_sidepath] on a cycle route. In my view it makes perfect sense to also warn for [bicycle=no] on a cycle route.
I recently made this mistake, blocking bicycle routing over a bridge and JOSM did not warn me: "Are you sure...?".

comment:5 in reply to:  3 Changed 3 weeks ago by anonymous

Replying to Klumbumbus:

A bicycle route is rather a signposted recommendation where you could do a nice bicycle tour on your sunday afternoon and has nothing to do with the laws which sections are allowed to ride with the bicycle. Of cause it makes sense to use mainly cycleways but a route may contain also short sections where cycling is not allowed e.g. to avoid long dertours.

A cycle route has only a minor relation to cycleways.
A good bicycle router allows you to follow (prefer) bicycle routes.
A cyclist - sometimes - wants to follow a bicycle route ("signposted recommendation") and therefore creates a GPS route that will follow this route. For most (or if you want: for some) routers a section having [bicycle=no/use_sidepath] will be blocked for routing. Which makes sense. Although for specific bicycles (more than 75 cm wide) [bicycle=use_sidepath] is not applicable (depending on country law). This is one of the exceptions to the rule...
Cycling where cycling is not allowed e.g. to avoid long detours is a violation of law: "not allowed". Which makes a bicycle route having [bicycle=no/use_sidepath] sections unlikely, or a temporary exception (construction).

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
Set your email in Preferences
Action
as new The owner will remain team.
as The resolution will be set.
to The owner will be changed from team to the specified user.
The owner will change to AnkEric
as duplicate The resolution will be set to duplicate.The specified ticket will be cross-referenced with this ticket
The owner will be changed from team to anonymous.

Add Comment


E-mail address and name can be saved in the Preferences.

 
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.