benlaenen at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 14:46:32 GMT 2009
James Livingston wrote:
> On 05/12/2009, at 4:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net>
> > wrote: I guess it is implied that when you are not allowed to carry a
> > bike you are not allowed to ride it neither.
> > 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.
> 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.
Don't know how it's in other countries, but if you walk next to your horse
over here, you're still its "driver", so you have to obey all the traffic
rules like if you were riding it (you're not walking it as a pedestrian on the
pavement I presume). If a traffic signs doesn't allow horses, you can't take
the "bicycle loophole" where you're not considered driving it when you're
walking not it.
Same for motorcycles for example: if you're walking next to a motorcycle with
the engine turned off, you're still driving that motorcycle. You'd even be
allowed to enter roads that don't allow pedestrians.
Since access rules apply to drivers of those vehicles, it's not really an
More information about the Tagging