Note Activities of mgrant

Note	#	⏱️ Last updated	Event	Contributor	Comment
4870520 Category: OsmAnd	1	~ 10 months ago	opened	mgrant ♦2	Step, impractical for bikes #OsmAnd
	2	~ 7 months ago	commented	rskedgell ♦2,548	If there's no signage to indicate that cycling is explicitly permitted (and I don't think there is), bicycle permeability isn't really an issue here. Does it present a barrier to wheelchair accessibility?
	3	~ 7 months ago	commented	mgrant ♦2	From memory, my issue wasn't that cycles weren't permitted, my issue was that it was impractical for bikes because in that tight space there was a bend and some steps. I think I had to pick my bike up for a few feet. There might have been a handrail (don't remember). My issue is really about routing in that it's probably best not to route bikes through this tight alley with the steps. It's not like there isn't a much better way around the other way. Feel free to delete this note if you think this issue is too minor. For me, it was just one of those "oh jeez, bikes shouldn't be routed down this" moments of frustration.
	4	~ 7 months ago	commented	rskedgell ♦2,548	The note is useful because it identifies a problem. In this case, we have a path which has only been tagged as highway=footway since it was added to the map in 2008. It's never had any bicycle=* tags, so cycle routing software shouldn't be trying to use it in the first place. I appreciate that this was 3 months ago, but can you remember which routing software and profile you were using? In the mean time, it wouldn't hurt to add bicycle=no to the way. It's technically redundant and might not fix the underlying problem. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28982999/history
	5	~ 7 months ago	commented	rskedgell ♦2,548	PS I'll try to go there tomorrow and add the step(s), which might also discourage bicycle routing.
	6	~ 7 months ago	commented	mgrant ♦2	Great. I hope I am not misremembering the step! Let me know what you find. I was using OsmAnd on my phone. I did some searching and it appears to have its own custom routing engine.
	7	~ 7 months ago	commented	harg ♦3,812	Mapping the steps (including the number of steps) and any other barrier is the correct solution. The router can then decide whether there is a better route. But even without the step mapped, the router is probably at fault if it is using a footway without instructing the cyclist to dismount for its entire length. If there's no better route, that would sometimes be a better alternative than a long detour, but the router should not be encouraging breaking the law if there is nothing to indicate that bicycles are legally permited. We don't have a bicycle=inconvenient tag and bicyle=no implies a specific legal prohibition according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle. So that would technically only be correct if there is signage or other evidence of the legal prohibition.
	8	~ 7 months ago	commented	rskedgell ♦2,548	No steps on this section, just flat asphalt. No signs prohibiting or allowing cycling, so best left tagged as highway=footway without access tags. Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/314016.jpg
	9	~ 7 months ago	commented	spiregrain ♦2,372	Any way to estimate a maxwidth for this? The similar path on the west side of Arundel Close can be measured from the cadastrals+NLS maps - but not this one.
	10	~ 6 months ago	closed	spiregrain ♦2,372
4870521 Category: OsmAnd	1	~ 10 months ago	opened	mgrant ♦2	No bikes allowed on footpath #OsmAnd
	2	~ 8 months ago	commented	rskedgell ♦2,548	This is already tagged as highway=footway, so bikes are implicitly prohibited. If there's a sign here, it might be worth adding it as a node (traffic_sign=GB:951), together with bicycle=no + bicycle:signed=yes on the way. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8262802