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

[Tod Fitch]

This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting a straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer.

Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled luggage is it okay now?”.

Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already have “dismount”.

Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up with a new value for that (“disassembled”?).

In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle over a “no”.

At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing value.

Cheers!
Tod

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:34 AM, Allroads <allroadsworld at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg <https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg>
> Geen toegang:
> - met (brom)fietsen.
> No access:
> - with bicycles.
> This is written, grammatically and  orthographly, in a way, that the "vehicle" is meant.
> explicit the bicycle no access.
> 
> This is privat land, Staatsbosbeheer, owned or in control, all over the Netherlands, you see these type of signs, arranged in the same way, the layout.
> Mostly all of these roads/tracks path are permissive
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg <>
> - Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen
> -Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads.
> Here is written what is allowed.
> But more important:
> Overigens verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S.
> Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law.
> The word  “Overigens” means:  all the other which is not mentioned above on the sign
> Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others then “wegen” roads.
> 
> A active Openmapstreet member got  a ticket for pushing his bike on a not allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer.
> 
> This sign with “Overigens”  of  the private organisation Natuurmonumenten, you find them all over the Netherlands, with the same layout.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘'
> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding this",
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
> 
> That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)
> 
> ‘'
> 
> Text on sign: “Overigens” and “- met fietsen”  "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited”
> 
> I need a value .*=explicit_no for “the vehicle” or some other value that means the same. “the bicycle is not allowed”
> 
> This is for all kind of transportation and vehicles. Pushing carry/not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push your bike, are you sure that was what it meant?
> Do you have a picture of the sign?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200722/1e964931/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200722/1e964931/attachment-0001.sig>