Présentement, la plupart des trottoirs ont bicycle=no, pour être compatible avec la loi au Québec qui interdit de rouler à vélo sur les trottoirs (permission de pousser le vélo à pied par contre). Pour mieux représenter cette loi, devrait-on utiliser bicycle=dismount sur tous les trottoirs qui ont ces trois tags: highway=footway, footway=sidewalk, bicycle=no (via une tâche en batch)? Certains calculateurs de chemins peuvent ne pas permettre l’accès à de nombreux parcs, écoles ou zones acommerciales présentement s’ils considèrent bicycle=no à la lettre. On ajoute habituellement des crossings pour vélo ou des cycleway=link pour connecter ces lieux aux rues, mais ça serait beaucoup plus simple à maintenir si on mettait bicycle=dismount aux trottoirs.
Right now, most sidewalks are mapped with bicycle=no, to be compatible with the law in Quebec (bicycle are prohibited on the sidewalk, unless dismounted). However, I feel like bicycle=dismount should be used instead (a batch task could do that to all ways with these three tags: highway=footway, footway=sidewalk, bicycle=no). Do you think it would be a good idea to do so. Right now, some routing engines may be kept from accessing sidewalks even with a dismounted bicycle, which is not realistic and blocks access to a lot of parks, schools, and commercial areas. We usually add cycleway links (cycleway=link or short crossing segments) between places and roads to fix this issue, but using bicycle=dismount on sidewalks would be way easier to maintain.
As a general rule, I would suggest omitting bicycle=* tag on footway=sidewalk ways, per Don’t map local legislation. Otherwise, will you also add tags atv=no and horse=no and more? I would only tag if it helps clarity somehow, or where bicycles are in fact frequently pushed down a sidewalk.
Having said that, I agree that bicycle=dismount is more correct when bicycles can be pushed, and if you are tagging widely, you might as well tag with the more correct tag. (bicycle=no is a bit of a skunked tag anyway, it is frequently interpreted as “dismount” in practice, see discussion in Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki).
This is a bit problematic since it would overwrite correct data in places where bicycle pushing is actually prohibited and has been tagged as such. I don’t know if there’s any such places in practice. (Busy pedestrian areas, perhaps? Vieux-Québec?).
I have never seen this in Quebec, except inside buildings. I think it would be safe. And it would be done only on footway=sidewalk. In busy pedestrian areas, these would be tagged as pedestrian streets with no sidewalks.
Bike pushing is explicitly prohibited in the part of the Parc des Rapides (Montréal) that sticks out into the river. But there are footpaths there, not sidewalks.
bicycle=no started with that meaning, bicycle=dismount was invented later in failed and doomed attempt to redefine bicycle=no to “pushing bicycles is also banned”
Since the discussion seems complete, can we have a vote on this proposition:
Convert all sidewalks in the Quebec province with the tag bicycle=no to bicycle=dismount? Sidewalks are considered when these tags are present:
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
bicycle=no
Are you in favor of converting to bicycle=dismount? Yes/No/Prefer not to answer/Don’t care.
This is not on official OSM vote, it is just to determine if we batch update sidewalks in Quebec province, which is a local issue because of a local law. Feel free to vote if you are from outside of Canada, but this should be reserved to canadian/quebecers. Thanks!
I don’t want to do a batch update like this without first asking the local community for support.
I voted yes but in fact I would actually prefer to see the bicycle=no tag removed from these sidewalks instead of changed to bicycle=dismount. But obviously only if it can be done carefully and following the automated edits code of conduct and so on.
Also I notice there are many other ways (at least in Montreal) that are highway=footway and bicycle=no , that are part of the sidewalk network but not tagged footway=sidewalk. For example all four corners of this intersection. If they can be included in the change that would be best.
However there are other ways, for example this path in a dog park or this path on Mont Royal that are tagged pretty much the same, but that should definitely remain bicycle=no (and not even bicycle=dismount).
Removing the bicycle tag altogether would not be compatible with the local law and it may encourage routers to send bicycle on sidewalks at cycling speed, which was a problem before and the reason why bicycle=no was added in the first place. The vote is only for updating from bicycle=no to bicycle=dismount. Removing the tag would not satisfy the local requirements unfortunately.
About the don’t map local legislation, there is an exception, which fits with our issue here:
”Legal aspects such as local traffic rules should only be mapped on specific elements (such as highways) insofar they are dependent on specific geographic features in the real world.”
Bicycle prohibited on sidewalks is specific to sidewalks and some signs may cancel the prohibition, which is the case in montreal, especially where there are underpasses that are dangerous to cyclsits and where they put signs saying that this segment only is permitted to bicycles at cycling speed (with pedestrian priority)
OSRM, which is one of the most used. You can disable the feature in the profile, but most bicycle routing would route on sidewalk where bicycle tag is not present. OSRM should route at pedestrian speed when bicycle=dismount is there.
I know, I’m saying that you may want to expand the search to include ways like the ones in the intersection mentioned, but unfortunately that search might also include the path on the mountain.
Yes, anyway, we are currently updating and validating all sidewalks and streets in the montreal region, so we will at some time update these little segments and add footway=sidewalk
Interesting, can you post a sample? I tried but have been unable to get OSRM as hosted by FOSSGIS and embedded in osm.org to use a sidewalk way for bicycle routing at cycling speed. Have they customized the profile? Where could I access a non-customized profile? Do any mainstream apps use it uncustomized, or OpenTripPlanner or something?
For example I tried to route 360 m along a sidewalk with no bicycle tags, but OSRM preferred to go out of the way to go on the highway=residential:
and in this example of a route along highway=primary with no bicycle infrastructure, the 582 m trip is expected to take 6 minutes, which is 6 km/h or so, not cycling speed. The pedestrian trip there is expected to take 8 minutes (~4.4 km/h).
If I move the starting point slightly further northeast, OSRM backtracks on the sidewalk and routes on the highway=primary.
That’s with the start and end points being right on the sidewalk way. If I make the start point on the primary, even right at a crossing, FOSSGIS’s OSRM avoids the sidewalk and prefers to route bicycles on the highway=primary with maxspeed=60, shoulder=no and no bicycle or cycleway tags:
The issue is that the directions panel does not tell you to dismount, and most if not all people would not analyse the speed and understand that this is indeed walking speed and you must dismount. The router in Quebec should tell you to dismount everytime it goes on a sidewalk, but it doesn’t, otherwise you could get a ticket. Having the dismount value would allow a routing engine to tell you to dismount (even if the current version of OSRM does not). Also, I do not think the current profile is correct either, because it automatically uses walking speed for any footway, no matter if bicycle=yes is present or not, which is a big issue because a lot of people tag bicycle/pedestrian shared paths as footway instead of cycleway with the sgregated tag. In our custom OSRM profile, we changed this to bicycle speed if bicycle=yes or if bicycle tag is absent, because otherwise we loose large part of the cycling network (even if we are trying to fix it, it will take a while).
.
