Does `bicycle=no` and `bicycle=dismount` mean the same?

[CycleStreets]

@CycleStreets

2. A tag for advisory Cyclists Dismount sign, i.e. the UK-specific civil insurance advisory signage, which is (confusingly) nothing to do with bicycle=dismount

Would it be a clear ‘quick win’ to branch off a discussion and get clear consensus on this particular matter, so a new tag can then start to be used, and some hope of future clarity on this be put in place?

Previously, bicycle:advisory_dismount=yes was suggested for the UK ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signage. As a reminder, this sign really means “The local authority grudglingly admits that cycling is actually allowed, but, for civil liability reasons, suggests you don’t.” It seems to be a special UK-specific situation.

(The resulting behaviour in our view would probably be that routers permit cycling but probably at a slower speed or with some kind of warning, but the decision of routing providers is a separate topic. At present we simply don’t even have the data to make a proper decision and give out that information!)

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@CycleStreets

Previously, bicycle:advisory_dismount=yes was suggested for the UK ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signage.

I’d suggest doing that in a separate thread, with clear pictures of the UK signage and links to the relevant bit of the Highway Code. It’s not really related to the general principle of “you are not allowed to cycle on the pavement”.

[rskedgell (Robert Skedgell)]

As we already have the established maxspeed:advisory=* (~35k uses in the UK), maybe bicycle:advisory=dismount? Rather than introducing a completely new tag for yet another UK-ism, we’d be adding a conditional-type postfix to an existing one.

[Richard (Richard Fairhurst)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

For example, is cyclestreets or any other router supporting “cycling is legal in Poland on sidewalk wider than 2m, along roads with speed limit higher than 50 km/h”?

Challenge accepted

(More seriously, no, cycle.travel doesn’t support that, but it does have all manner of country-specific routing rules to cope with undocumented local tagging practices…)

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@Richard

undocumented local tagging practices

this one is more of quirk of legal system

though I expect that tagging bicycle=yes is far more popular than marking width, maxspeed on road along it and hoping that router can figure it out

[lamms (lam)]

There is the “Defaults” proposal that would allow mapping some state/country defaults. Though AFAIK its not supported by anything and it commits the sin of using = in the keys. i.e. def:highway=footway;bicycle=yes sets bicycle=yes on all footways implicitly (Ideally I think this should be changed to a syntax kinda like def:highway=yes @ (bicycle; footway) or something, but its besides the point).

For the broader question, in my locality bicycles are always allowed to ride on footpaths and sidewalks. I use bicycle=dismount only when there is explicit signage telling cyclists to dismount, and bicycle=no when there is some kind of physical impediment for bicycles that would make it impossible to transit through even if you dismounted, e.g. its a passage thats too narrow for the handlebars to fit in or something.