<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPuHQ=HL52=nsGTJBsDzvOcNaLcMJC5UpZQ4-pnh8EwDqxYf6Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">My guess is that the
adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar<br>
would require significantly *less* work than re-examining
all current<br>
bicycle=no ways.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, I think that would be workable.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean
=no! But I<br>
fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of
the past has<br>
a formidable inertia.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise
that most countries do not have such restrictions, hence
regardless of how you would like to redefine `bicycle=no`,
half of the world would still keep tagging it incorrectly.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a
dismounted bicycle violates the principle of least surprise
because it's inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't
presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, or
dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way.</p>
<p>I'm not asking for a stricter redefinition of bicycle=no because
I suspect it's simply not feasible at this point, especially given
the continued popular support for the interpretation that allows
dismounted travel. But it's clear why there's confusion here.
Precisely because of this inconsistency in the meaning of *=no,
the strictest documented bicycle tag value does not correctly
describe the strictest real-world cases (which are not rare.) And
I guarantee that many mappers do not know that they're implicitly
permitting dismounted bicycle travel when they tag bicycle=no,
especially if they're aware of the bicycle=dismount tag.<br>
</p>
<p>At the same time, I fear that defining a new value, stricter than
=no (eg =prohibited, =banned, etc) would probably cause more
problems than it would solve, given the number of data consumers
that would need to adapt to this change. This is why I reluctantly
suggested adding a second tag (dismounted_bicycle=no) alongside
bicycle=no, even though it feels like an ugly hack. Other
possibilities might be prohibited=bicycle, bicycle:prohibited=yes.
foot:pushing_bicycle=no, foot:conditional=no @
(pushing_bicycle)... all pretty hard to love.<br>
</p>
<p>Maybe I'm wrong and a stricter-than-no value could be adopted
without too much pain? There is already limited use of
bicycle=prohibited. (OSRM currently appears to ignore it, see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832</a> and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804</a>
.)<br>
</p>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>