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

Jmapb jmapb at gmx.com
Wed Jul 22 15:59:09 UTC 2020

On 7/22/2020 11:34 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com
>> <mailto:jmapb at gmx.com>> wrote:
>> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
>> idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then
>> I'd suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
>> regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key.
>> Total bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
>> dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
>> developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.
> Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no
> now need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added
> implies that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no”
> prevail and the rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.
> Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way,
> why not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means
> dismount”? Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if
> there is an additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.

My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
bicycle=no ways.

Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I
fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has
a formidable inertia.


More information about the Tagging mailing list