JOSM: recommended alternative way for bicycle=dismount

There are many places on OSM that affect reasonable bicycle routing. Some of them are short passages that disallow bicycle ride for just some meters. By nature, by law, or just by unreal OSM marking.

Routing software for bicycle profile creates for such cases usually ridiculous, much longer alternative paths no rider would choose.

In some feature ticket discussion there was stated, that Bicycling is about bicycle riding, not pushing. I disagree with above statement. Bicycling, in opposite to car driving, is about pushing as well. Every reasonable bicyclist would push bicycle for 10 meters, instead of going 1 km long diversion/loop road. Who never pushed his/her bicycle, throw a stone as first.

Current JOSM does not support bicycle=dismount.

What is for JOSM recommended alternative way for bicycle=dismount, allowing bicycle routing algorithms to route through, but still keep info it is a way piece not free for riding ?
Or to use just hard bicycle=yes ?

Note that I am a novice in OSM editing, so I may have easily missed something, so I would be glad if corrected.

The point is: When you push your bike you’re not driving it. At least in germany (I suppose in most other countries as well) when you push your bike you’re legaly equal to a person with a cart (or carrying a fridge or whatever), which is equal to a person walking. So bicycle=dismount would be represented by bicycle=no foot=yes.

Also note that it’s a lot easier to do it correctly if you enter exactly what the signs are saying. I.e. normally no access tags, if there’s a “no bicycle”-sign only bicycle=no (and not foot=yes, since it’s default).

Bicycling routing does not work idealy for me either. I have resorted to doing short sections, using undo often when it takes the long way instead of using a small footway shortcut where I can dismount and walk the bike, then try again to route a little further. I often need to turn off routeing and use a direct track to move through short cut and convenient grassed areas or parks. It is a very slow and interupted process to get my track completed. A bicycle=dismount seems to be a good addition to the tags and cycle routing engines could offer these as alternative routes. Although I sometimes despair of the process, I am still quite greatful to have the routing engine do the initial try.
I have only ever seen a couple signs on the ways asking cyclists to dimount so the tag would not be of much assistance I guess. But I would like to see bicyle routing engines use footways more often and mark such as an alternative route where the cyclist may need to dismount.

I believe there is some confusion: JOSM does not need to “support” bicycle=dismount you can simply add the tag you think it is appropriate (I don’t believe that there is any current OSM editor that doesn’t support free form tagging).

Now what a routing application actually does with such data is a completly different question and not something that any specific editing program can influence.

I suppose the walker status is probably the same in most countries. But there are 2 side points, as it is not all matter of law.

  1. You became legally a walker, but physically and logically you are still a biker. Such approach invalidates bicycle profile routers on PC or phones. Router does not count with fact a biker can walk. bicycle=no foot=yes. is taken as you cannot pass, while you definitely can. You will bel routed through way nobody would actually choose. It should be routable with some walking speed penalty, based on dismount status.

  2. Dismount status is not always required by law, either explicitly by sign, or implicitly by an object class. It may be required physically. Routers should have the chance to evalute - yes, you have to walk this way, but it is much shorter and faster than if you ride loop way.

As I noted, I am new to JOSM and still quite new to OSM editing, so I may have not discovered that option yet. I thought only values from pull down menu are available.

I agree an editor does not have direct influence on what routing program does. But OSM data do have such influence on what such a program does, or can do. Routing programs should have data that help them to reflect usual real ( and legal ) behaviour.

One way is to mark short passages with high routing gain by dismount status, so routers have chance to recognize them and bicycles could be routed via them. This would be very efficient. If they actually would be used by a particular router is another story. Chance is important.

The other way is to make bicycle routers to route via all bicycle=no foot=yes ways, but with walking speed penalty. This would be very overkill and inefficient. Routing calculation would slower, resource demanding and with small gain.

I agree with your point of view. Bicycle routing need a lot of operator guidance, not “buying” all it offers to you.

Notes that there is really very seldom to see Dismount sign. It is more about implicit traffic law status of the way, or about physical conditions. I think bicycle=dismount meaning/usage should not be limited to explicit sign, as wide meaning and usage can allow big gain for bicycle routing.

And that’s exactly what a good routing profile does :wink:

Thanks, at first peek, this one one is quite impressive :smiley: I have preferred the gpsies.com one in full screen mode so far, but there are many that are very capable and being able to create your own profile must help.

I suppose so. But it can do it by efficient - with dismout, or inefficient - without dismount way. One think is manually created paths with planning tools, other thing is outdoor bicycle navigation. By router, I had in mid the latter.
The BROUTER seems impressive.

How would you comment my previous text ?

One way is to mark short passages with high routing gain by dismount status, so routers have chance to recognize them and bicycles could be routed via them. This would be very efficient. If they actually would be used by a particular router is another story. Chance is important.

*The other way is to make bicycle routers to route via all bicycle=no foot=yes ways, but with walking speed penalty. This would be very overkill and inefficient. Routing calculation would slower, resource demanding and with small gain.
*

A bikers go via longer routes than walkers, but widening the routing algoritm to all foot ways and paths is inefficient.

Nothing is ideal.

Routes bicycles over motorways with bicycle=yes

No for Brouter ( can be installed to OSMAnd ),
yes for YOURS, built in navigation modul of OSMAnd.

openstreetmap.org wiki - Routing -online_routers

Sometimes there may be a few steps along a bicycle tour. Even a keen mountain biker may not always be able to master them, like that example a little North of Prague:

larger photo: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/59223921
map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.3159/14.4388

I do not know how the maps / routing engines cope with that. You have to carry your bike over those steps, and on the other side of the bridge there are such steps again…

Brouter deals with steps, and gives them extra penalty / route cost, similar as for pedestrian only ways.

And one can use a routing profile avoiding steps.