[Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?
mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 20:34:55 UTC 2020
On 23/07/2020 16.16, Mike Thompson wrote:
> Perhaps it is unfortunate that for modes of transportation we picked
> nouns rather than verbs (e.g. foot vs. walking), but that is what it
> is by long tradition. A similar thing applies to horse=no. There
> are roads (some of the US Interstates) where you can not ride your
> horse, but you can load your horse into a trailer, hook the trailer
> up to your truck, and drive with your horse on those same roads.
...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no. Besides,
those restrictions are generally because slow-moving traffic is a
hazard; in a trailer, your horse (camel, elephant, ...) is no longer
For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but
not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that
if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
I don't think bicycle=no and horse=no should mean something different.
If horse=no means "no horses allowed", not "horses allowed as long as no
one is riding them" (which I would expect to be the case), then
bicycle=no should mean the same thing with "bicycle" substituted for
"horse". And in both cases, we're talking about the horse/bicycle being
*directly* on the way, not being inside a vehicle.
More information about the Tagging