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

Alan Mackie aamackie at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 22:02:22 UTC 2020

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:18, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted
> bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent
> with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a
> motor_vehicle=no way, or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way.
> bicycle=no is a strict "no", it is just that it means "no bicycling" or
> "no bicycle riding."

> 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.

And now I have the perverse desire to suggest that if bicycle=no prevent
(bi)cycling we should use bicycling=no to prohibit the bicycle itself. But
that would be as terrible as I am currently finding it funny.

I suggest that if what is prohibited is pushing the bicycle, then we make
> an explicit tag for that bicycle_pushing=no. The same with regards to
> carrying the bicycle. If possession is prohibited all together, then
> bicycle_possession=no.
> This sounds wordy but reasonable. Keep the mode prohibition on a separate
tag to the item prohibition.  Yes it is another tag for routers to deal
with, but it doesn't break the one they already look at.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200723/a4106006/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list