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

bkil bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 16:09:12 UTC 2020

Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment
value, but then I accept your challenge.

Actually I could indeed think of a place where you are only allowed to
be present in case you are pushing a bicycle. Imagine a bicycle
adventure park that only contains bicycle roads. Let's say that the
terms of service declares that visitors must not leave their bikes
unattended (i.e., no parking).

Now let's pretend that there's a small bridge in the middle of the
park that includes a small stretch of stairs that has bicycle pushing
rails (or substitute with just a single wooden bridge in a bad shape
that has a bunch of long cracks that could easily lock your wheels if
you ride over it - true story, we had a bridge just like that). A sign
would be posted here that disallows bicycle riders from accessing it,
but pushing through would be possible.

How could you be walking on to this bridge if you were not in
possession of a bicycle in the first place?

/OFF: Yep, the included whip antenna of an RTL SDR can receive these
beacons from an impressive range.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 5:33 PM Matthew Woehlke
<mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > unsuitable.
> >
> > A few of examples from my local big town
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194
> 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...
> --
> Matthew

More information about the Tagging mailing list