[chris66] chris66 https://community.openstreetmap.org/u/chris66
July 18Concerning the fotos: no hw=steps there. But maybe barrier=log,
height=0.1 could be added.
And bicycle=discouraged, hazard=dangerous_bikepath.
It is in Baden-Württemberg, it is less than 2 meters wide, hence it
is
illegal
to use a bicycle there.
Why not plainly bicycle=no?
It is in Baden-Württemberg, it is less than 2 meters wide, hence it
is
illegal
to use a bicycle there.
on some pictures it seems that 2m are available, but in general, to nitpick, it is just „irregular“ to ride your bike on smaller paths (in German: ordnungswidrig). Judging by the fine (35eur), it seems the legislator sees riding there a less important transgression compared to exceeding the speed by 11-15km/h inside a settlement (50eur).
Why not plainly
bicycle=no?
+1, how do we deal with ways that are around 2m wide, partially wider partially inferior? Provided you may push your bike on any path (where it is too narrow), should the tag be alternated for every section?
I’m fine with this if there is no sign which is indicating an exception.
Warning: If you bike down the not difficult part, a) you can’t see what to expect in 15 m and b) when your reach the difficult part (and are not that mountain bike hero mentioned here), you can’t get through without crashing, I say. c) There is no other way to turn after the not difficult part.
So I suggest not splitting these 20 - 30 m long path into a 15 m good and 15 m bad one, simply because that would not help anybody in any way.
Yes, but if the way is split and tagged appropriately, you will be able to see it on the map, and the app you are using should not route you over this path if you indicate your skill level is less than the difficulty of the difficult part, unless you indicate you are willing to walk. There are a lot of mountain bike trails that contain short sections that I cannot ride, I often ride what I can, and walk the rest. However, if the entire path is tagged as being difficult, I might avoid it all together.
While helpful, mtb:scale=* cannot be determined solely from an elevation profile as the underlying DEM is not precise enough. There are a lot of trail characteristics that will not show on a elevation profile that impact mtb:scale=*, such as how loose and rough the surface is, is there a smooth straight section before or after the obstacle, is there a tight turn before and after the obstacle?
If, and only if, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the path, then this is the appropriate course of action.
| tekim Mike
July 19 |
- | - |
Yes, but if the way is split and tagged appropriately, you will be able to see it on the map, and the app you are using should not route you over this path if you indicate your skill level is less than the difficulty of the difficult part, unless you indicate you are willing to walk. There are a lot of mountain bike trails that contain short sections that I cannot ride, I often ride what I can, and walk the rest. However, if the entire path is tagged as being difficult, I might avoid it all together.
+1. exactly, the same goes for other ways that are interrupted at some point, but may still be useful up to that point, even without any crossing in between. I also usually split the ways to locate the problem as accurate as I can.
If, and only if, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the path, then this is the appropriate course of action.
it’s in Baden-Württemberg where “state” law forbids riding a bicycle on ways in the forest which are narrower than 2 meters. In this case, the steep part looks narrower than 2 meters (if it even can be called a “path”), so bicycle=no seems correct for this part at least.
But then please also consider tagging width=* and source:bicycle=width; LWaldG (Wiki), to distinguish between paths that are forbidden by a sign and paths that are forbidden due to the state forest law (“Landeswaldgesetz”).
I think splitting up shirt sections for difficulty is usually discouraged. For hiking trails Difficulty rating accounts for the whole path inbetween to junctions or destinations.
For example if you have a long trail with a short but dangerous section, people might not see that tiny part and think they gonna hike a very easy trail.
of course if you have some POI (a lake, waterfall,) that could be used as a turn around point, than chopping up the path might be useful
I think it’s better to split paths if the difficulty changes. This way the user can better decide to take a few meters of difficult path or to take a detour.
I think it is up to the renderer to display a prominent warning sign if there is a short difficult section.
Wow, I’m impressed by the number of postings my original posting has triggered.
As for splitting the path into an easy and a difficult part, may I remind that, a) once I was in the difficult part, I could not stop anymore and was doomed, and b) you just can’t see that in a few meters the way gets heavily dangerous. So, for biking, I would strongly recommend to flag the “Eselspfad” as strictly not for biking. The next one going into this trap may not be as lucky as I was, and end up seriously injured, or plain dead.
Can’t it handle both? Break the trail up into sections of different types that can be rendered differently, and also tag the entire route for the max difficulty?
As a convenience for interested readers: Routing in bike profiles shall not propose this way any more 
Way: Eselspfad (219354728) | OpenStreetMap is currently tagged as highway=path (not any more track/Wirtschaftsweg) and bicycle=no (so forbidden) and mtb:scale=2 (so more difficult).
Hello schoschi and all the others in this thread,
Thank you very much for this decision! And thanks to all of you for the engaged discussion here. I am sure the final decision is the right one and may well save people. Thanks again and all the best to the OpenStreetMap community.
Best Regards,
Stefan Falk
Great tagging for the router… 
When you contacted Bosch about their router sending you down a dangerous route, what did they say?
The same day I wrote them, they replied that they depend on the OSM data but nevertheless took notes of the problem for further investigation and improvement. Today, I wrote them that OSM has changed the flagging of the Eselspfad, and they immediately responded that during the next update cycle (whenever this may be), the current OSM data will be used.
Also, they hoped that my injuries get better fast.
I don’t know if the use a copy of the OSM data, which they periodically refresh, or if they lookup the OSM data “live” (and I do not even know if that is possible or usual at all). Bosch’s reactions were very prompt and friendly, so I am happy with them.
Regards,
Stefan
Ich möchte an source:bicycle erinnern, denn hier halte ich die Verwendung ebenfalls für empfehlenswert. Begründung:
Could you please share why you consider it mapping for the renderer?
IMHO, the new tagging – which is BTW not by me – is not for the router, but more correctly describing the object: That way is too narrow to be use by common two-tracked vehicles, hence, it fails the definition of a track. Bicycle is legally disallowed, so bicycle=no is correct. From the photos and description mtb:scale=2 seems appropriate
bicycle=no is wrong. It was just used to make (bicycle-) routers not use this way anymore (this was the intention of the thread starter).
I explained i the german forum, why we can’t transfer the 2m-rule to OSM (in short: even experts don’t know how to apply this law to the real world.)