[Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Nov 6 00:24:05 UTC 2019


On 06/11/19 09:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 07:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     sent from a phone
>
>     > On 5. Nov 2019, at 18:48, Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com
>     <mailto:selfishseahorse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that *driving* a bicycle
>     > isn't allowed. So it seems just logical to use a new tag for places
>     > where pushing (or transporting) bicycles isn't allowed too. Maybe
>     > bicycle=total_ban or bicycle_pushed=no?
>
>
>     I agree that bicycle=no has no implications for people pushing bikes,
>
>
> But if bicycle=no means that you can't ride a bike, wouldn't foot=no 
> also mean that you can't push a bike ie if you're pushing a bike, 
> you're walking, & foot=no means you can't walk, so you can't be 
> pushing a bike?

If walking is allowed but bicycles (ridden, carried or pushed) are not 
allowed .. then????

Logically bicycle=no should be taken as no bicycles (ridden, pushed, 
carried or any other way).

Does motor_vehicle=no mean I can push one though there? I did think not 
... at least not on a regular basis ...

However the sign of a bicycle with a red slash through it is usually 
taken as no ridding of a bicycle and normally allows dismounted 
transportation of bicycles. At least that is my and others use of the 
sign here.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191106/217f0d50/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list