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

Matthew Woehlke 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 mailing list