[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Jonathan bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 12:40:39 UTC 2013


Wow, Oxford's parks sound a fun place to be! Not! ;-)

On a more serious note, I would have thought tagging this one: 
http://cycle.st/p17860 would be straight forward because no pedestrian 
and no bicycle also means no pushing a bicycle.  You gotta wonder who 
can use he gate? :-)

But thanks Stephen for the heads up on such tough restrictions on bike 
users in the UK, have never seen anything so extreme.  But then I've not 
been to Oxford for about 20 years!

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 14/10/2013 13:23, Stephen Gower wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
>> explicitly signed as e.g.  "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford
>> University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).
> Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
> had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
> the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
> http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER
> RIDDEN OR NOT")
> The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
> http://cycle.st/p17861
>
> Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
> situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
> software etc, that does.
>
> s
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




More information about the Tagging mailing list