[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Philip Barnes phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Wed Oct 9 14:18:50 UTC 2013


Can happen where pedestrians and stopping are prohibited, but cycling is allowed.  
 
Phil (trigpoint)
--
 
Sent from my Nokia N9
 


On 09/10/2013 14:55 John F. Eldredge wrote:

Georg Feddern <osm at bavarianmallet.de> wrote:
Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty:

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow
footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Not only was the footway narrow, [...]

there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along the Dunn
Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY.

well, if it is tagged as highway=footway you already have to dismount - 
otherwise it would be tagged as highway=cycleway.
So where is the need for a bicycle=dismount here?

I only see the practical need for a bicycle:dismount=no where bicycles 
are even not allowed dismounted.

Georg




Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Bicycle:dismount=no is ambiguous. Many people are likely to interpret this as meaning "you are allowed to be mounted on a bike, but not allowed to dismount from a bike". I think bicycle=no would be clearer in meaning.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131009/d7546260/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list