[Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 06:01:31 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> can significantly churn up a soft surface. Whereas wheeling (or carrying) a
> bike is unlikely to significantly inconvenience pedestrians nor to do any
> harm to the path.
>

Yeah, my cynicism thinks the main reason bikes can't even be wheeled in
"wilderness areas" of the US is to prevent people riding them then suddenly
hopping off the instant they see a ranger.

I don't think there's any drama in "bicycle=no" and "horse=no" having
different semantics. I don't think we suddenly want to revise "bicycle=no"
to mean their presence is banned, and "bicycle_riding=no" to mean what
"bicycle=no" currently means.

Though I still have trouble deciding for a lot of paths around here if it's
really "bicycle=yes" (implying some sort of deliberate intention that bikes
are allowed and a suitability for them) or "bicycle=no" implying a strict
prohibition. Whereas the reality is probably more like "bicycle=whatever" or
"bicycle=if_you_really_want" or "bicycle=just_dont_hit_anyone".

2. Perhaps horse=no should mean that you cannot ride or lead a horse - but
> you can carry it (like a bike)? (;>)
>
>
> Yeah, just take the legs off first, easier to carry that way...

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091207/2bb9e6af/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list