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

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 23/07/2020 17.30, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> ...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.
>
> Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that
> using a mode of transportation that primarily uses feet  ("foot
> travel"/walking/running/hiking) isn't allowed.
> bicycle=no is consistent with this, it doesn't mean that bicycles are
> prohibited, it means that a mode of transportation, (bicycle riding) is
> prohibited.
> horse=no is apparently a  little different as you point out.  It seems to
> refer not just to a mode of transportation, but to the possession of the
> animal in general.

I disagree. In both cases, what is prohibited is the horse/bicycle 
touching the ground.

Based on that, you could argue that bicycle=no means you can *carry*, 
but not *walk* (push) your bicycle. I would be *tentatively* sympathetic 
to such an argument... depending on how obnoxious it is for you to be 
dragging around a bicycle. For something like a foldable, or if is 
dismantled enough to not be a large, ungainly object, then I would lean 
toward that being okay (which is where we get into prohibited=bicycle or 
whatever spelling).

> It is similar to dog=no. dog=no doesn't refer to
> whether you can use a dog as a mode of transportation, it means you can't
> possess a dog at all on the given way (even if you carry it).

*This* is where things become inconsistent :-). Although, as we've 
noted, in some instances you *can* carry your dog.

-- 
Matthew