[Tagging] bicycle=no

[Paul Johnson]

Liz wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Because I find bicycle=destination meaningless

It's not meaningless, it's vague.  There's a world of difference. 
=destination means that, for whatever reason, it's not suitable as a
through way, but you may be forced to walk your bike or merge into a
narrow street with faster traffic.  According to the "bicycle" page on
the wiki, the destination tag is meant for "NO THROUGH BICYCLES"
situations, but I'm willing to expand that a bit to include ways where
bicycles can legally use it as a through road, but doing so is not a
good idea except as a last resort.