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

[bkil]

Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes make
sense, let me add another consideration.

This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default on
highway=footway):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg

bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't
feasible:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg

On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the road
has sidewalk=!none.

However, transporting a (folding) bicycle here is still allowed in the
trunk or on racks without any trickery.

Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules would
like to achieve?
vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited + moped=prohibited +
unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited + wheeled_luggage=prohibited

I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent a
specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be in
possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use
(access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the wild, they
could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when the park rangers
are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such restriction, but it
might also make sense to put it onto the natural area instead of each and
every individual path of it.

Am I right in that they still allow riding on the back of animals (like an
elephant, buffalo, yak, camel, donkey or horse) or machinery that mimic
limbic locomotion (like AlphaDog <https://invidio.us/watch?v=cr-wBpYpSfE>)?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:58 PM Allroads <allroadsworld at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is annoying for me too.
>
> A router discussion.
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
> Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the
> bicycle=no, which is not a hard no.
> Some qoutes.
> “Hm, but in very most cases, bicycle=no is used effectively in sense of
> bicycle=dismount, not in in sense *No bicycles here*.”
> “In my experience, bicycle=dismount is used very rarely, mostly if there
> is an explicit request to do it, in agreement with OSM intention for short
> way segments only, like e.g. narrow bridges, passes, collision danger etc.”
> “
>
> The only relevant interpretation of bicycle=no is the OSM tagging
> intention, not what I or you think about it. And that is clear - red/white
> traffic sign with a black bicycle, or legal equivalent.
>
> The routing itself is for bikers, not bicycles. Pushing bicycle is a legal
> and frequent mode of bicycle transportation. Bikers may then use such
> profiles that either penalize it either forbide it ( CF=10000 for total
> ignoring, or 9999 for navigation hint consideration )”
>
>
>
> Nothing changed.
>
> What they saying is, it is common accepted, OSM intention.
> bicycle=dismount is not often used, but very often should it be used, so
> routers take the common accepted. =no also = dismount. A hell of a job to
> set all these =dismount, tagging, what is really prohibited is better, OSM
> method. (new value?).
>
> Talking to route developers* is now  a past station!* Conclusion: no is
> not a hard no. Unfortunately, we must go further. A new value! This not
> only a bicycle problem.
>
> .
> No, new access key
> dismounted_bicycle all others must also have a equivalent, unworkable,
> more typing. Better one value, that fits all, fits the access systematic
> hierarchy.
> You must always look at this hierarchy to make routing decisions.
> The choose for a key make everything more complicated.
> Also for visualization.
>
>
> *From:* Tod Fitch
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:53 PM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle
> not allowed here"?
>
> 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
>
> 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/fce32003/attachment-0001.htm>