Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal
Hi, Pieren wrote: > Why not simply "dress=no" ? ^^ Some people might argue for "dress=dismount". SCNR, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Hello, SomeoneElse wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that >> "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as >> this has nothing to do with cycling. > > What about the equivalent situation for horses? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011 > > Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that this > is > very definitely related to horseriding. :) It's even more interesting to consider dogs. Bicycles and horses can both be considered as means of transportation. Depending on cultural differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but definitely not as means of transportation. Then it will become clear, that in OSM two things are mixed: $entity=no can refer to a ban of driving it, if $entity is a means of transportation or it can refer to a ban of it as object, if $entity is not a means of transportation. We now have to think of a most general way to tag, how to ban an entity as object if it can be considered as means of transportation. Yours, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > IMHO we should encourage tagging of the permission of pedestrians to push a > bicycle only for those few places where it isn't allowed to do so (and > probably > in many of these cases it won't just be forbidden to push a bicycle or two, > but > also to carry it/them, while it might mostly be allowed to carry the bicycles > in > a box just like you'd be allowed to carry any other big loads). +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Hi, John F. Eldredge wrote: > If you really meant "it is in no way acceptable to require people to dismount > their bikes", Indeed this is what I meant. Thanks for pointing out this ambiguity! > what about the real-life situation I described earlier, a narrow > footway along one side of a bridge, with a railing only slightly above waist > level for a pedestrian? A mounted cyclist would have a high enough center of > gravity that, should they collide with the railing, they would likely fall > off > of the bridge. I do not fully understand your example of the bridge either. Are there any other roads on the bridge or is it just a pedestrian bridge. If there are other roads: are bicycles explicitly banned from using the road or is it just that the drivers of some other vehicle do not like them to use the road? But in order to become on topic again: The reason why I wrote this post was to point out, that this is something, a lot of people have very strong feelings about and therefore such tags would lead to edit wars in the database. Yours, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Hi, fly wrote: > Hey > > I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. > > At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the > existence of some. Every time I see such a sign, I get very angry about the fucking moron, who was responsible for this bullshit. Of course, it is in no way acceptable to let people dismount their bikes. Bicycles are not toys, they are vehicles of their own right. That's way I also don't think it is acceptable for a routing service to suggest a route for a bicycle where one can't use it the way it is supposed to be. Yours, Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
