[Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?
mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 15:33:38 UTC 2020
On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
>> are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped
>> or...). Do you know of any examples?
> I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
> than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
> footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
> A few of examples from my local big town
All of those examples appear to allow regular pedestrians (foot=yes),
which is common. I am asking if there are any places where walking is
allowed *only* if you are pushing a bicycle, i.e. "no bicycle, no
access". IOW, where your joke about dogs isn't a joke.
(OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization —
although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a
military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant
to *identify friend or foe*, or if they're more just "transponders".)
On 23/07/2020 09.59, bkil wrote:
> For example, bicycle=dismount should be understood that bicycle
> access is only allowed if a rider dismounts. However, if we had to
> write bicycle=dismount + foot=no, then the meaning basically becomes:
> neither riding your bicycle nor walking is allowed here, which is
> quite the opposite compared to what bicycle=dismount would mean if it
> were placed alone on the POI. Hence the correct way to tag this
> should be bicycle=no + foot=no.
Right, that's what I was suggesting, because the only plausible
interpretation I can come up with for foot=no + bicycle=dismount is that
you may traverse the way [on foot] iff you are pushing a bicycle. The
question was, does that ever actually happen? I'm not *quite* willing to
rule it out...
More information about the Tagging