<div dir="ltr">Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes make sense, let me add another consideration.<div><br></div><div>This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default on highway=footway):</div><div><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg</a><br><div></div></div><div><br></div><div>bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible:</div><div><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg</a></div><div><br></div><div>On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the road has sidewalk=!none.<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, transporting a (folding) bicycle here is still allowed in the trunk or on racks without any trickery.</div><div><br></div><div>Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules would like to achieve?<br></div><div>vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited + moped=prohibited + unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited + wheeled_luggage=prohibited</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent a specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be in possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use (access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the wild, they could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when the park rangers are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such restriction, but it might also make sense to put it onto the natural area instead of each and every individual path of it.</div><div><br></div><div>Am I right in that they still allow riding on the back of animals (like an elephant, buffalo, yak, camel, donkey or horse) or machinery that mimic limbic locomotion (like <a href="https://invidio.us/watch?v=cr-wBpYpSfE">AlphaDog</a>)?</div><div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:58 PM Allroads <<a href="mailto:allroadsworld@gmail.com">allroadsworld@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>It is annoying for me too.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A router discussion.</div>
<div><a href="https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79" target="_blank"><font face="Times New Roman">https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79</font></a></div>
<div>Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the
bicycle=no, which is not a hard no.</div>
<div>Some qoutes.</div>
<div>“<font color="#24292e"><span><font face="Segoe UI"><font style="font-size:10.5pt">Hm, but in very most
cases,</font><span><font style="font-size:10.5pt"> </font></span></font></span><code><font face="Consolas"><font style="font-size:8.3pt">bicycle=no</font></font></code><span><font face="Segoe UI"><span><font style="font-size:10.5pt"> </font></span><font style="font-size:10.5pt">is used effectively in sense of</font><span><font style="font-size:10.5pt"> </font></span></font></span><code><font face="Consolas"><font style="font-size:8.3pt">bicycle=dismount</font></font></code><font face="Segoe UI"><span><font style="font-size:10.5pt">, not in in
sense<span> </span></font></span><font style="font-size:10.5pt"><em><strong style="box-sizing:border-box">No bicycles here</strong></em></font><span><font style="font-size:10.5pt">.”</font></span></font></font></div>
<div><font color="#24292e"><font face="Segoe UI"><span>“<span><font style="font-size:10.5pt">In my experience, bicycle=dismount is used very
rarely, mostly if there is an explicit request to do it, in agreement with OSM
intention for short way segments only, like e.g. narrow bridges, passes,
collision danger etc.”</font></span></span></font></font></div>
<div><font color="#24292e"><font face="Segoe UI"><span><span>“</span></span></font></font></div>
<p><font face="Segoe UI"><font style="font-size:10.5pt" color="#24292e">The only relevant
interpretation of bicycle=no is the OSM tagging intention, not what I or you
think about it. And that is clear - red/white traffic sign with a black bicycle,
or legal equivalent.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Segoe UI"><font style="font-size:10.5pt" color="#24292e">The routing itself
is for bikers, not bicycles. Pushing bicycle is a legal and frequent mode of
bicycle transportation. Bikers may then use such profiles that either penalize
it either forbide it ( CF=10000 for total ignoring, or 9999 for navigation hint
consideration )”</font></font></p>
<p><span><font face="Verdana"></font></span> </p>
<p><font color="#24292e">Nothing changed.</font></p>
<p><font style="color:rgb(36,41,46)">What they saying is, it is common accepted, OSM
intention. bicycle=dismount is not often used, but very often should it be used,
so routers take the common accepted. =no also = dismount. A hell of a job to set
all these =dismount, tagging, what is really prohibited is better, OSM method.
(new value?). </font></p>
<p><font color="#24292e">Talking to route developers<u> is now a past station!</u>
Conclusion: no is not a hard no. Unfortunately, we must go further. A new value!
This not only a bicycle problem.</font></p>
<p><font color="#24292e">.</font></p>
<div>No, new access key</div>
<div><font face="Verdana"><font style="font-size:9.8pt">dismounted_bicycle all
others must also have a equivalent, unworkable, more typing. Better one value,
that fits all, fits the access systematic hierarchy.</font></font></div>
<div>You must always look at this hierarchy to make routing decisions.</div>
<div>The choose for a key make everything more complicated.</div>
<div>Also for visualization. </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="font:10pt tahoma">
<div><font size="3" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div style="background:rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="tod@fitchfamily.org">Tod
Fitch</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:53 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tag discussion, strategy and
related tools</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing
bicycle not allowed here"?</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">This
thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with some
routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a “maybe”
and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, really,
mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting a
straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer.
<div> </div>
<div>Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled
luggage is it okay now?”.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already
have “dismount”.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up
with a new value for that (“disassembled”?).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle
over a “no”.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a
bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths
are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing
value.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers!</div>
<div>Tod</div>
<div><br>Tagging mailing
list<br><a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>