stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 06:01:31 GMT 2009
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> can significantly churn up a soft surface. Whereas wheeling (or carrying) a
> bike is unlikely to significantly inconvenience pedestrians nor to do any
> harm to the path.
Yeah, my cynicism thinks the main reason bikes can't even be wheeled in
"wilderness areas" of the US is to prevent people riding them then suddenly
hopping off the instant they see a ranger.
I don't think there's any drama in "bicycle=no" and "horse=no" having
different semantics. I don't think we suddenly want to revise "bicycle=no"
to mean their presence is banned, and "bicycle_riding=no" to mean what
"bicycle=no" currently means.
Though I still have trouble deciding for a lot of paths around here if it's
really "bicycle=yes" (implying some sort of deliberate intention that bikes
are allowed and a suitability for them) or "bicycle=no" implying a strict
prohibition. Whereas the reality is probably more like "bicycle=whatever" or
"bicycle=if_you_really_want" or "bicycle=just_dont_hit_anyone".
2. Perhaps horse=no should mean that you cannot ride or lead a horse - but
> you can carry it (like a bike)? (;>)
> Yeah, just take the legs off first, easier to carry that way...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging