<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 05/12/2009, at 4:14 AM, Anthony wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Matthias Julius <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@julius-net.net">lists@julius-net.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
I guess it is implied that when you are not allowed to carry a bike<br>
you are not allowed to ride it neither.<br></blockquote><div><br>True, but when I tag bicycle=no, I don't intend to imply anything about whether or not you are allowed to "carry" a bike. It may be allowed. It may not be allowed.<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I'd hope that bicycle=no would have the same implications for having a bicycle without riding it as other *=no tags would for their transports. For example I would guess that where horse=no is used, you often can't walk your horse as well as not riding it. So maybe having a separate tag for things which are not allowed (e.g. prohibited=bicycle;horse;explosives) could be the way to go.</div><div><br></div><div>Throwing out some more random examples, there are tunnels which have "no explosives to be taken into this tunnel, trucks with those detour that way ->" signs.</div></body></html>