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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 00:50:21 UTC 2020



sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, 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.
> 
> I'm not asking for a stricter redefinition of bicycle=no because I suspect it's simply not feasible at this point, especially given the continued popular support for the interpretation that allows dismounted travel. But it's clear why there's confusion here. Precisely because of this inconsistency in the meaning of *=no, the strictest documented bicycle tag value does not correctly describe the strictest real-world cases (which are not rare.)
> 


it is not our fault that bicycles are treated differently by the law than automobiles or horses. ;)
the tag “bicycle” is not about bicycles as an object, but about the legal possibility / right to ride a bicycle.
Typically, people pushing a bike are legally pedestrians. That’s why bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no are synonymous, and why neither of them is suitable to describe whether you can bring a bike as an object, without riding it.

Cheers Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200724/9c296a99/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list