Hi!

Thanks for the report! The default is indeed that highway=pedestrian is a dismount for bicycles (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Default). Taking into account country-specific default restrictions is near to impossible in a general purpose map such as CyclOSM.

This is true however that we don't have any special render for highway=pedestrian with a bicycle=yes tag.

Example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54967586.

@Florimondable maybe we could keep the large grey border but use a walking speed color?

For the record, relevant style code is https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/blob/master/roads.mss#L2037-L2079.

Best

I agree it would be nice to be rendered.
@Phyks walking speed and pedestrian colors are the same.
(there is an optimization that could be done in the lines you show btw).

I'm bad with colors, sorry :/ I was thinking about the green we have here https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=20/48.86674/2.34451/cyclosm (no motor vehicle?).

Yes it's no motor vehicle. You don't see the difference ?

I had a very bad screen at hand, and the combination of my color perception, small color areas in the legend and the screen made me confusing it :) On a nice screen now there is no doubt !

Apologies for the delay. I am a bit confused about these default access values for all countries in the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Default). There, the value is “no” rather than “dismount”. However, “bicycle=no” clearly turns a hw=pedestrian on cyclosm noncyclable, so “hw=pedestrian” and “hw=pedestrian+bicycle=no” are rendered differently. I also checked it in Denmark where the default is bicycle=no on hw=pedestrian, and the rendering is still the same, independently of whether Danish mappers add a bicycle=dismount or not. So, it seems that cyclosm does not actually work with these access values. Or, are they wrong in the wiki?

The problem of bicycle=dismount vs. bicycle=no goes deeper. As explained in the wiki, many mappers use “no” but what they actually mean is “dismount”. I highly doubt that it is forbidden to push a bicycle in a Danish pedestrian area. Some routers therefore also route over ways with a bicycle=no tag simply presuming that it should be fine to walk the bike.

So, the actual distinction which would be nice to be shown on the map is between “dismount” and “yes”. In this context: Some hw=pedestrian that I have recently worked on carry a bicycle:conditional=yes @ (some time period) tag. It is great that this is actually spelled out on the map. However, it looks a bit silly as the way is marked as always cyclable anyways.

About the colours: I have a moderate red-green color blindness and therefore similar problems distinguishing colours. If I focus on this, I of course see the difference, but it takes me a much bigger effort than it does for "healthy" people.

The difference between bicycle=no and dismount is most of the time the board stating it.
If the board order to dismount use dismount if it forbid bicycle use no.

You're right we have an issue with bicycle=dismount not rendered, it should be the same as bicycle=no.
example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431657731

I disagree about this. I know the situation well in the UK and in Germany. In both countries, the usual "bicycle prohibited" sign, that is, the round white one with a bicycle in the center and a red circle, means that cycling is forbidden but it is allowed to push. (Whether using your bike as a scooter is allowed, is a different matter.) In fact, in these countries, explicit dismount signs are rare and it is unclear if they are even legal. I am sure it is different in some other countries, but I would assume it is similar in most. The same applies to the round white one with the red circle forbidding entry for all vehicles. Cycling forbidden, pushing is fine.

I think the only good way to deal with this is by differentiating between yes, dismount and no.
But using dismount on hw=pedestrian which is intuitively most logical contradicts the wiki....

The same in France, but we tag what's on the ground not in the law book. We tag the traffic sign not there interpretation.

Understand. In that case, I agree with what you said earlier, dismount should be rendered as no which also means that all hw=pedestrian are rendered as noncyclable. It is then up to the user to understand this as "Push your bike if that's allowed in your country".

I would not focus on the bicycle=no case, as this can have very different meaning in reality (you can push your bike on a highway=pedestrian with bicycle=no but you cannot do anything on a highway=primary with bicycle=no). Handling all of these would probably clutter the map. Same stands for bicycle=dismount as in the case presented here, they are often used in an interchangeable way.

highway=pedestrian default access restriction for bikes is (equivalent to) dismount. Therefore, a pedestrian (with its own rendering) is not expected to be bikable.

What about, on the contrary, rendering bicycle=yes tag? I would expect an highway=pedestrian + bicycle=yes to be basically the same quality as a cycle street (except that there will likely be tons of pedestrians, but this is already indicated by the pedestrian rendering). So an highway=pedestrian with bicycle=yes could be rendered with blue arrows, same as cycle street.

"Therefore, a pedestrian (with its own rendering) is not expected to be bikable."

That is exactly the point. hw=pedestrian should have the same rendering as hw=pedestrian+bicycle=no (or the rare hw=pedestrian+bicycle=dismount) but it does not. Instead, hw=pedestrian has the same rendering as hw=pedestrian+bicycle=yes, which is not good.

"as this can have very different meaning in reality (you can push your bike on a highway=pedestrian with bicycle=no but you cannot do anything on a highway=primary with bicycle=no)"

This is true, but it could be managed easily. Once dismounted, a cyclist becomes a pedestrian (at least in most countries). So, on a hw=primary, the meaning of bicycle=no becomes clear upon inspecting the corresponding foot tag. If there is no such tag or foot=yes, walking the bike is fine. In case of foot=no, it is not.

That is exactly the point. hw=pedestrian should have the same rendering as hw=pedestrian+bicycle=no (or the rare hw=pedestrian+bicycle=dismount) but it does not.

Indeed, due to https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/blob/master/roads.mss#L2895-L2897.

I made a PR to try to improve this. I'm waiting for @Florimondable feedback on this one.

I completaly disagree hw=pedestrian is not bicycle=no by default, that depends on countries law, and we cannot infer them.

It is not about inferring correct (or incorrect for that matter) tags from country laws. That would be hopeless since it is very country-specific. In the end, we can only stick to the general access restrictions for all countries in the wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Default

(First table there). On "hw=pedestrian" it says "bicycle=no". The wiki is not flawless, but I am not aware of any other source of information which has higher priority than this table. So, at least in the rendering, "hw=pedestrian" and "hw=pedestrian"+"bicycle=no" should be equal, that is, "hw=pedestrian" should not be rendered as "hw=pedestrian" + "bicycle=yes". It does not say anything about the situation in a specific country.

As said by the first sentence of the page it's a proposal
«Default is a proposal (not yet fully drafted, no RFC, no voting yet) for a possible, upcoming default value system.»

I hope, but may be that's not the case, that pedestrian roads are rendered in CyclOSM in such a way that we understand it's not a perfect road for cyclist and can be quickly seen as pedestrian.

I dug back on this and through the country-specific restrictions. My main question was basically "can the default proposal be seen as a majority vote across country-specific restrictions?". Basically, are a majority of countries having a bias towards bicycle=dismount or bicycle=yes, so that default rendering could accomodate a majority of people worldwide.

It is definitely not the case, and it seems roughly half of the countries are a bicycle=yes and half of them are a bicycle=dismount|no. :/

The question of having country-specific values built into CyclOSM is happening more and more often (maxspeeds, driving side, etc.). We should probably investigate how this could be achieved (practically, in terms of rendering and code, not in terms of parsing OSM tags / wiki), but this is a separate issue.

Concerning this specific question of default restriction for highway=pedestrian, I don't have strong opinion. I would be slightly more enclined to bias towards the bicycle=dismount which would be more conservative (in compliance with default proposal, no legal risk to indicate you cannot cycle when you actually can).