<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23520">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The Dutch example is based on a local (municipal)
ordinance which regulates whether you are allowed to walk your bicycle in this
pedestrian zone. So, it is a "real" regulation (but it is not an example of a
"bicycle dismount" regulation). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bicycles are not allowed at all, so a "bicycle=no" tag
could cover that situation, but since it is currently tagged
"highway=pedestrian" that shouldn't be necessary. You won't be routed along that
street and you can see if you get there that you are not allowed to walk the
bike through it (though some people do, Martin, don't despair!).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>But this kind of situation is not covered by the tag
bicycle=dismount: that's for when you can continue on a route, but you have to
get off the bike and walk it through. In the Netherlands, you will come across
temporary signs like that at road works (although their use in those cases is
currently deprecated and probably also has no legal force) and there are a
limited number of permanent "dismount" signs on cycleways. It is not really
clear whether such signs have any legal force either. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>We discussed this on the Dutch forum some time back and I
think the consensus was only to tag "bicycle=dismount" where there is an actual
sign (and not at every set of steps with a bicycle ramp, which some mappers were
doing). Since the signs are really present, I can't see why we would not tag
accordingly. I don't see it as a matter of choice. We tag what's
there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>On 8 October 2013 20:15 Matthijs Melissen
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>>On 8 October 2013 19:46, Ole Nielsen
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>>Here is one found in a local shopping centre in
Rijswijk (crappy phone photo made in poor lighting).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>><A
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fiets-verboden.jpg</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>> It literally translates to "Forbidden to bring
along bicycles by hand"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>Thanks. I also found the relevant
regulation: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>> <A
href="http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html">http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Rijswijk/107457/107457_1.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>This is not a traffic regulation, but a city ordinance
meant to prevent nuisance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>Could it be that the German signs are also regulated
in local ordinances (I suppose that would be a Polizeiverordnung)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>>--Matthijs<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>