[Tagging] bicycle=no

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 10 16:53:44 GMT 2009

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Maybe that's why barrier=kerb isn't in the wiki.

> Or barriers
> could be erected by bodies that don't have the right to impose laws or
> bylaws.

Only on private land, which is what I meant about yes=permissive/no=private,
and the fact that technically, bicycle=yes is incorrect on private land and
it should be bicycle=permissive, but realistically, I don't think mappers
make much distinction between yes and permissive, or between no and private.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091210/997d3e9a/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list