[Tagging] bicycle=no
Mike Harris
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 17 22:54:25 GMT 2009
Mike Harris didn't write that - though I did read it!
Mike Harris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson
> Sent: 17 December 2009 01:31
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
>
> 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)?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list