[Tagging] bicycle=no

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at
> least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether
> or not crossing a barrier is legal.  The purpose of a barrier, at least a
> barrier in a public way, is to make the illegal impractical.

You're essentially saying that legality and practicality are usually
aligned, in practice. But of course, an example like a kerb is a
barrier that is impractical to ride over, but not illegal. Or barriers
could be erected by bodies that don't have the right to impose laws or
bylaws.

> There are quite a lot of barriers which are vehicle=yes on both sides, but
> vehicle=no for the barrier.  Both legally and practically.

Heh, good point. I should know, I live in such a street! (Or another
example, a service gate at a swimming pool: the public can be on
either side, but is not allowed to use the gate.)

So, to summarise so far:

- legality and practicality of crossing barriers are distinct
- legality and practicality of crossing barriers are also distinct for
different modes of transport
- legality of crossing a barrier is distinct from legality of being on
either side of it.

>The problem with using an access tag on a highway which is also a barrier is that the access tag on a barrier goes perpendicular, but the access tag on a highway goes along the way

I think this would only be a problem when a highway shares a way with
a barrier. This could happen, for example with a fenced-off tramway.
In that case, the two meanings of "foot=no" would actually be aligned:
you can't walk along the tramway, nor can you cross it. But there are
probably cases where that doesn't work. (I guess a fenced off bike
path, if that exists, would be in that category: you can ride along
it, but not across it).

Maybe "bicycle=yes" and "bicycle:crossing=no"? Eurgh. The limitations
of key/value pairs.

Steve