[Tagging] bicycle=no

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 10 04:32:33 GMT 2009

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > *Sigh*.  I'll bite.  What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but
> > not to the other?  You know barrier doesn't mean "impenetrable", right?
> Well a series of boulders is a barrier to vehicles, but not even
> noticeable to pedestrians.

But it isn't a fence.

> > Yes, you are.  And presumably certain types of barriers have different
> > defaults.  But a fence which allows access?
> Sure, like fences around golf driving ranges that protect people
> outside from golf balls, but might have gaps.

Not sure I'd call that a fence, and even less sure I'd call it a
barrier=fence.  I don't know, though.

> >> Oh, and add barrier=barricade, for a low anti-car obstruction.
> >> (barrier=roadblock? I'm thinking of these barriers you often see around
> >> parks here, two vertical poles with a long vertical pole bolted across,
> >> about knee height. Usually treated pine.)
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dcycle_barrier ?
> Pretty similar - but poorly named for this instance.

Most OSM tags are poorly named for a lot of instances.  Personally, I've
learned to treat them like terms in a foreign language.

> The barriers I'm
> thinking of have to do with bicycles - they keep cars out of
> pedestrian areas.

That's specifically addressed on that web page.

Incidentally, I notice that the definitions of "bicycle=yes",
> "bicycle=no" on that page conflict with what has been said elsewhere
> on this thread - they define practical access, not legal access.

Yep.  Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091209/9bd2d479/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list