[Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 15:37:32 GMT 2009

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:00 AM, James Livingston <doctau at mac.com> wrote:
>> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using bicycle=no for situations where riding is not allowed, and access=private+foot=permissive for situations where bicycles aren't allowed.
> That sounds reasonable to me. If everyone like that, is it worth putting on the 'access' wiki page as an example for how to tag something not completely obvious?

Documenting decisions like this is definitely the right thing to do,
but I'm not sure "access=private, foot=permissive" screams "bikes are
not allowed, even when pushed" to me. The situation where bikes aren't
allowed *at all* is pretty rare. Even in the Grand Canyon, US, you can
carry a bike, disassembled. But there aren't very succinct ways of
saying "not even if you push it".

Maybe a tag like "bicycle=prohibited"? "bicycle=no_entry"?

> Several of the "cyclists dismount" signs over here in Australia are at crossings, where you are supposed to dismount anyway, so those ones are presumably a "no really, we mean it" reminder as you could in theory be booked for no doing it anyway. For the ones where you could otherwise ride you bike, I don't know if they have any legal force (not being a cyclist myself).

If it's illegal to ride across any crossing, it doesn't seem worth
tagging the fact, regardless of signage. (Although this comes back to
the discussion about local laws...)

Tags like "bicycle=dismount" would be more useful to cover something
like an unrideable section of a rail trail or something. (Yes, they


More information about the Tagging mailing list