[Tagging] bicycle=no

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Dec 17 01:31:19 GMT 2009

Mike Harris wrote:

> IMHO it would be more useful if bicycle=no meant 'no cycling' ... I think
> there are quite a few situations where a cyclist could wheel (or carry) the
> bike but not ride it. Without bicycle=no it would be difficult to know that
> it was 'no cycling' but with 'bicycle=no' + 'foot=yes' it would be
> reasonable to assume a default that the cyclist could wheel / carry the
> bike.

Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are
posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes.  Really, what's wrong with the
"bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without
trying to supersede common sense (ie, identifying and obeying traffic
control devices as they're encountered)?

More information about the Tagging mailing list