Add separate no-thru handling for bicycles

[leonardehrenfried]

Summary

Creates no-thru handling for bicycles separate from cars.

Issue

Closes #3396

Unit tests

I've added unit tests for both the car and the bicycle cases.

Code style

✅

Documentation

It seems like and implementation detail. Should it be explicitly documented?

Changelog

✅

[gmellemstrand]

It does seem strange, but do you know why the "forestry" and "agricultural" tags where checked here?

[leonardehrenfried]

We also thought that this is strange - if not a bug. In Germany at least forestry and agricultural roads are not no-thru by default. They may be closed to non-farming traffic but that's not what this piece of code did.

For that reason I removed it.

If no-thru really is specific to each country then we need move that into the way property set.

[gmellemstrand]

It might be that it is there to avoid taking shortcuts through forestry and agricultural roads, even if it is technically allowed. We could talk about this on the next dev meeting, to get other people's input.

[leonardehrenfried]

Good idea.

[flaktack]

Handling of the tags was moved to WayPropertySetSource so that is may be modified as-needed, along with a mention of the changes to the mailing list.

[wolfbert]

I've stumbled upon this while researching router handling of forestry roads, and yes, I realize the thread is old.

Just to clarify, forestry and agricultural in OSM are documented access tags . They mean, not surprisingly, "for the respective purpose only".

To allow for recreational cycling, tagging should be motor_vehicle=* (or, more clumsy, vehicle=* + bicycle=yes). Edit: There is in fact a semantic difference between the two (hint: hand_cart).

Under no circumstances should you route a recreational cyclist e.g. through vehicle=forestry, as a bicycle in OSM counts as a vehicle and this would not be a forestry purpose.

In Austria, this would also be in violation of federal law (and the traffic sign is tagged as vehicle=forestry).