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

[bkil]

But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would
create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred tagging
practice in OSM.

I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you dismount,
however if a certain combination of other tags are also present (foot=no),
a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing than
necessary (bicycle=no).

By the way, shouldn't simply adding motor_vehicle=only be sufficient? That
mostly covers the legal definition around here.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:26 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> on motorways there is also foot=no, this is why dismounting isn’t an
> option there. Generally we assume that dismounting makes the cyclist a
> pedestrian (vast majority of bicycle=no are just the same as dismount), and
> the rest is a different kind of question (what kind of objects  are you not
> allowed to bring, including bicycles, firearms, alcohol, religious symbols,
> political symbols, animals, sneakers, scissors, face masks, fireworks, etc.
> etc.)
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200723/82c39571/attachment.htm>