Phyks
commented
6 months ago For example, the wiki suggests using it for these paths or signs: example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_R8-1.svg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z239ZZ1022_10GehwegRadfahrerFrei1.jpg
I'm not sure to understand why this would be tagged as explicit highway=path + bicycle=yes, given that this is already the default implication from highway=path. Especially in Australia where the wiki is quite clear about it.
Most explicit bicycle=yes tagging I am aware of are usually on different highway values with no bicycle=yes implicit access restrictions (such as highway=footway). From a worldwide perspective, adding bicycle=yes on a highway=path should not convey much more information.
From the page on implied default access restrictions, adding an explicit bicycle=yes tag to highway=path should convey extra meaning only in Austria.
waterced
I would also like to hear other perspectives, but I think bicycle=yes is not well rendered.
Bicycle=yes is (after bicycle=designated) a pretty strong indicator that a road/track is also made for cycling. For example, the wiki suggests using it for these paths or signs: example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_R8-1.svg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z239ZZ1022_10GehwegRadfahrerFrei1.jpg So bicycle=yes indicates that a road infrastructure is maybe not made foremost and in law for bikes, but it is made also for it.
Nevertheless it is not rendered differently than the standard path without bicycle=yes in Cyclosm. But paths without bicycle=yes are in many countries not allowed or are often not suitable for bikes (because they are mountain paths, to steep, too bumpy...). Thunderforest OpenCycleMap does render bicycle=yes like bicycle=designated by the way. So maybe Cyclosm could also render it? Maybe also in blue or some lighter blue?