|
Hi! In my city there are a few of these barriers at parks' entrances/exits:
I think they should prevent cyclists from entering the parks without blocking wheelchairs at the same time. Am I right? So I guess, the proper tags could be:
highway=service
Any advice? |
|
barrier=cycle_barrier on the node (don't forget the barrier=bollard at the end of the bridge). I'm really curious as to how this would be considered as designated for wheelchair users. I'd be tempted to tag it wheechair=limited. But at this stage, there's no guessing what is passing through the local council worker's head. AFAIK, disabled= is only meant for parking spaces. Use wheelchair= for access restrictions. It also certainly isn't a private lane, so dont tag it like this. I'd go with highway=footway bridge=yes layer=1 access=no foot=yes wheelchair=limited. See also bicycle=dismount
(01 Jul '13, 17:17)
Vincent de P... ♦
1
I'd also consider maxlength= and maxwidth=, since some cargo bikes and most bikes pulling trailers wouldn't be able to navigate this due to the narrow width and short tangent.
(06 Jul '13, 06:22)
Baloo Uriza
We had a discussion on the Dutch forum about cycle barriers and maxlength/maxwidth recently. One of the conclusions was you can't get good values for these. A wider bike would have a shorter maxlenght.
(06 Jul '13, 15:05)
cartinus
I get that, but there's still a maximum practical length and width.
(06 Jul '13, 19:00)
Baloo Uriza
|
|
I'd guess that circular sign you can see might help. Is it a no cycling sign? Or something else that might help? It might be that cycling is permitted, just awkward... And your link for the photo suggests that they form part of NCN 6, so I'd be surprised if cycling isn't at least designated (though have seen sections of NCN routes which tell cyclists to dismount). It may be designed to slow cyclists down rather than prevent their access (there are a few simpler barriers like that near me, more like those in the cycle barrier wiki page photo that are on bridges on a shared used cycle path for no obvious reasons that I can see). Could it be for slowing cyclists? as it looks to me a cycle could pass ok, We had some of a different type to slow children when the way met a road.
(01 Jul '13, 17:20)
andy mackey
If this comment relates to my links, then I suspect so, and I can almost understand them further on where the path does meet a road, though think all users of both roads and the path should be aware of what is around them and then they wouldn't be needed. But on that short footbridge which is the same width as the path they seem unnecessary. I suspect the barrier in the original image is also to slow cyclists, but seems a very awkward design.
(01 Jul '13, 17:27)
EdLoach ♦
|
|
I would use barrier=chicane bicycle=yes and foot=yes on the way. I am sure wheel chairs, motability scooters and cycles could get through ok. tandems don't know. see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dchicane and http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/tags/chicane/ This bridge is only 1.5 meters wide and if a cycle meets a cycle or a pedestrian it does not leave much space for safe passing at any speed. Unless all users careful, which we/they are not, speed reduction devices are necessary. Much better than banning any users. PS I thought this forum is about mapping??
(06 Jul '13, 19:04)
andy mackey
|
Shoot the city planners?
(admittedly that may not be the type of advice you were looking for...)
I expect some wheelchairs to have problems with this barrier.
Barriers like this are usually installed to discourage motorcyclists / moped users from the path. They are common on NCN 22 in London, for example.
Are the parks private parks or are they community accessible? If legally accessible to the general public I'd not use access=private (but am not familiar with special UK tagging regarding right-of-way etc.)
@gormo: they are public parks, so they are accessible to everyone but the barriers allow only pedestrians and (maybe) wheelchairs and/or other transport modes; hence the use of access=no/private+foot=yes