[Tagging] one-directinal bicycle dismount on oneway road ?

[Georg Feddern]

Am 19.01.2014 12:06, schrieb Colin Smale:
> In the UK there is a difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling". 
> Although in general you may be correct that a dismounted cyclist is 
> effectively a pedestrian, there are also footways (or whatever you 
> want to call them) signed as "no cycles", which means that in these 
> cases a dismounted cyclist is not equivalent to a pedestrian. 

Yes, I had that in mind, but that was not the question here. ;-)
(You get what you ask. ;-) )

> If foot=yes (explicit or implied) implies bicycle=dismount which 
> corresponds to "no cycling", I would suggest that bicycle=no would 
> then mean "no cycles" i.e. not even if dismounted.
>

Ouch - I won't mix this here.
bicycle=no is long time used and defined as "traffic", as "use", not as 
"object".
So "bicycle=no" means "no cycling" a long time already.

For "no cycles" there should be a new tag.
There was a discussion some time ago.

> But watch out for talking about "what is legally allowed" as it varies 
> widely by country!
>

Georg