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

/OFF-topic

>  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 think the last few messages are pointing us in the right direction,
but let me share some entertaining insights to answer your question.

Under our jurisdiction, a person pushing a bicycle or a moped (mofa)
are specifically mentioned at various key points in the law.
https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=9751.KPM

The law legally regards you as a pedestrian when you (Appendix 1, II/a):
* push a bicycle,
* push a moped,
* ride a (slow enough) wheelchair,
* push a wheelbarrow,
* push a stroller.

The following road users are regarded as drivers (Appendix 1, III/a):
* person driving a vehicle (except person pushing bicycle or moped),
* person riding/driving/leading an animal.

Pushing a cart seems to be a mixed bag:
* you don't need to hold a driver's license,
* you are not considered a pedestrian, hence can not use the sidewalk
and must abstain from alcohol consumption.

Pushing any other vehicle (e.g., motorcycle, automobile) is considered
dangerous and not recommended, except for moving them to safety until
it can be towed. The pusher in this case is legally considered a
driver, the act itself is legally considered driving the given vehicle
and hence must hold a valid license and must also abstain from
alcohol.

So to sum it up, when you are pushing your car, the same OSM car
access restrictions apply to you as if you were sitting inside and
using the engine. When you are leading your horse, the same horse
restrictions apply to you as if you were riding it (i.e., you should
not lead a horse on public roads when you are drunk because you may
not be cautious enough to protect the animal from causing an
accident).

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:36 PM Jmapb  wrote:
>
> On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
>> would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
>> bicycle=no ways.
>>
>
> Yes, I think that would be workable.
>
>>
>> Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I
>> fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has
>> a formidable inertia.
>>
>
> I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture.
>
> Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise that most countries do 
> not have such restrictions, hence regardless of how you would like to 
> redefine `bicycle=no`, half of the world would still keep tagging it 
> incorrectly.
>
> 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.) And I guarantee that many mappers do not know that they're 
> implicitly permitting dismounted bicycle travel when they tag bicycle=no, 
> especially if they're aware of the bicycle=dismount tag.
>
> At the same time, I fear that defining a new value, stricter than =no (eg 
> =prohibited, =banned, etc) would probably cause more problems than it would 
> solve, given the number of data consumers that would need to adapt to this 
> change. This is why I reluctantly suggested adding a second tag 
> (dismounted_bicycle=no) alongside bicycle=no, even though it feels like an 
> ugly hack. Other possibilities might be prohibited=bicycle, 
> bicycle:prohibited=yes. foot:pushing_bicycle=no, foot:conditional=no @ 
> (pushing_bicycle)... all pretty hard to love.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong and a stricter-than-no value could be adopted without too 
> much pain? There is already limited use of bicycle=prohibited. (OSRM 
> currently appears to ignore it, see 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832 and 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804
>  .)
>
> Jason
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Alan Mackie

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:18, Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb  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.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Peter Elderson

bicycle=leave

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 23 jul. 2020 om 23:32 schreef Mike Thompson :

>
>
> 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.  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).
>
>
> >
> > For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but
> > not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
> Right, because it is no longer the mode of transportation.
>
> > FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that
> > if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
> well, "no does mean no", it means "no bicycle riding", it means, no using
> a bicycle as a mode of transportation. It doesn't say anything about
> possessing a bicycle in general, or using it in another manner (pushing,
> carrying)
> "dismount" is not the complete solution, because, as the original question
> implied, sometimes it is also illegal to carry a bicycle (although I have
> never seen that), and as someone else pointed out, sometimes it is illegal
> to even possess a bicycle at all, such as in a US Wilderness Area.
>
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson

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.  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).


>
> For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but
> not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
Right, because it is no longer the mode of transportation.

> FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that
> if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
well, "no does mean no", it means "no bicycle riding", it means, no using a
bicycle as a mode of transportation. It doesn't say anything about
possessing a bicycle in general, or using it in another manner (pushing,
carrying)
"dismount" is not the complete solution, because, as the original question
implied, sometimes it is also illegal to carry a bicycle (although I have
never seen that), and as someone else pointed out, sometimes it is illegal
to even possess a bicycle at all, such as in a US Wilderness Area.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


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 
slow-moving.


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.


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb  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.

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.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


On 23/07/2020 15.34, Jmapb 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,


While I would generally agree, I *have* seen someone "dismount" their 
car¹ and drag it along sidewalks. Mind, they also drove it onto an 
elevator and into a library², so...


(OTOH, they may have had permission to do this; "someone" *was* Jeremy 
Clarkson... If you saw it, you knew this thread wasn't going to be 
"complete" until it got mentioned ;-). Yes, you *can* "dismount" and 
push/pull a road-legal petrol vehicle. Depending on the vehicle.)


(¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_P50)

(² ...or was that the "P45"? I forget...)


or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way.


Definitely.

--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Jmapb

On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote:

My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
bicycle=no ways.

Yes, I think that would be workable.

Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I
fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the
past has
a formidable inertia.

I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture.

Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise that most
countries do not have such restrictions, hence regardless of how you
would like to redefine `bicycle=no`, half of the world would still
keep tagging it incorrectly.

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.) And I guarantee that many mappers do not
know that they're implicitly permitting dismounted bicycle travel when
they tag bicycle=no, especially if they're aware of the bicycle=dismount
tag.

At the same time, I fear that defining a new value, stricter than =no
(eg =prohibited, =banned, etc) would probably cause more problems than
it would solve, given the number of data consumers that would need to
adapt to this change. This is why I reluctantly suggested adding a
second tag (dismounted_bicycle=no) alongside bicycle=no, even though it
feels like an ugly hack. Other possibilities might be
prohibited=bicycle, bicycle:prohibited=yes. foot:pushing_bicycle=no,
foot:conditional=no @ (pushing_bicycle)... all pretty hard to love.

Maybe I'm wrong and a stricter-than-no value could be adopted without
too much pain? There is already limited use of bicycle=prohibited. (OSRM
currently appears to ignore it, see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804
.)

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


On 23/07/2020 12.09, bkil wrote:

Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment
value, but then I accept your challenge.


I wasn't asking for entertainment. I was asking because, while 
*logically* it seems like such a combination doesn't make sense, the 
refrain around here seems to be "don't assume".



Actually I could indeed think of a place where you are only allowed to
be present in case you are pushing a bicycle. Imagine a bicycle
adventure park that only contains bicycle roads. Let's say that the
terms of service declares that visitors must not leave their bikes
unattended (i.e., no parking).

Now let's pretend that there's a small bridge in the middle of the
park that includes a small stretch of stairs that has bicycle pushing
rails (or substitute with just a single wooden bridge in a bad shape
that has a bunch of long cracks that could easily lock your wheels if
you ride over it - true story, we had a bridge just like that). A sign
would be posted here that disallows bicycle riders from accessing it,
but pushing through would be possible.

How could you be walking on to this bridge if you were not in
possession of a bicycle in the first place?


Interesting. I suppose the question becomes, if there were such a way, 
would you tag it foot=no + bicycle=dismount?


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment
value, but then I accept your challenge.

Actually I could indeed think of a place where you are only allowed to
be present in case you are pushing a bicycle. Imagine a bicycle
adventure park that only contains bicycle roads. Let's say that the
terms of service declares that visitors must not leave their bikes
unattended (i.e., no parking).

Now let's pretend that there's a small bridge in the middle of the
park that includes a small stretch of stairs that has bicycle pushing
rails (or substitute with just a single wooden bridge in a bad shape
that has a bunch of long cracks that could easily lock your wheels if
you ride over it - true story, we had a bridge just like that). A sign
would be posted here that disallows bicycle riders from accessing it,
but pushing through would be possible.

How could you be walking on to this bridge if you were not in
possession of a bicycle in the first place?

/OFF: Yep, the included whip antenna of an RTL SDR can receive these
beacons from an impressive range.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 5:33 PM Matthew Woehlke
 wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
> >> are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped
> >> or...). Do you know of any examples?
> >
> > I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
> > than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
> > footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
> > unsuitable.
> >
> > A few of examples from my local big town
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194
>
> All of those examples appear to allow regular pedestrians (foot=yes),
> which is common. I am asking if there are any places where walking is
> allowed *only* if you are pushing a bicycle, i.e. "no bicycle, no
> access". IOW, where your joke about dogs isn't a joke.
>
> (OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization —
> although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a
> military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant
> to *identify friend or foe*, or if they're more just "transponders".)
>
> On 23/07/2020 09.59, bkil wrote:
> > For example, bicycle=dismount should be understood that bicycle
> > access is only allowed if a rider dismounts. However, if we had to
> > write bicycle=dismount + foot=no, then the meaning basically becomes:
> > neither riding your bicycle nor walking is allowed here, which is
> > quite the opposite compared to what bicycle=dismount would mean if it
> > were placed alone on the POI. Hence the correct way to tag this
> > should be bicycle=no + foot=no.
>
> Right, that's what I was suggesting, because the only plausible
> interpretation I can come up with for foot=no + bicycle=dismount is that
> you may traverse the way [on foot] iff you are pushing a bicycle. The
> question was, does that ever actually happen? I'm not *quite* willing to
> rule it out...
>
> --
> Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 16:35, Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

Well off-topic now.

(OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization —
> although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a
> military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant
> to *identify friend or foe*, or if they're more just "transponders".)
>

Transponders on civil aircraft implement a subset of the military
Mark XII IFF system.  This is no coincidence: military aircraft
should treat civilian aircraft as friendly...  Mode S (civilian)
and mode 5 (encrypted version of mode S for the military)
are used by TCAS to avoid collisions.  So civilian
transponders are IFF systems with restricted capabilities.

This is probably not a suitable place to discuss this further.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you 
are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped

or...). Do you know of any examples?


I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
unsuitable.

A few of examples from my local big town
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194


All of those examples appear to allow regular pedestrians (foot=yes), 
which is common. I am asking if there are any places where walking is 
allowed *only* if you are pushing a bicycle, i.e. "no bicycle, no 
access". IOW, where your joke about dogs isn't a joke.


(OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization — 
although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a 
military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant 
to *identify friend or foe*, or if they're more just "transponders".)


On 23/07/2020 09.59, bkil wrote:

For example, bicycle=dismount should be understood that bicycle
access is only allowed if a rider dismounts. However, if we had to
write bicycle=dismount + foot=no, then the meaning basically becomes:
neither riding your bicycle nor walking is allowed here, which is
quite the opposite compared to what bicycle=dismount would mean if it
were placed alone on the POI. Hence the correct way to tag this
should be bicycle=no + foot=no.


Right, that's what I was suggesting, because the only plausible 
interpretation I can come up with for foot=no + bicycle=dismount is that 
you may traverse the way [on foot] iff you are pushing a bicycle. The 
question was, does that ever actually happen? I'm not *quite* willing to 
rule it out...


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:27, bkil  wrote:

> Thank you, I do have a degree related to mathematics
>

That's something I didn't know.

and I do understand what *iff* means.
>

I would hope so.

However, that message didn't make sense with this interpretation,
>

It didn't make much sense to me with either interpretation, but I assumed
that if I could be bothered to read back in the thread then it might make
sense.  Or not.  That's why I asked if it made sense to you (or anyone
else) knowing what "iff" means.  Then again, maybe he was talking
about aircraft transponders (still makes no sense, but at least the
mental image of bikes having identify friend or foe transponders
is mildly amusing).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Thank you, I do have a degree related to mathematics and I do understand
what *iff* means. However, that message didn't make sense with this
interpretation, this is why I've clarified my answer and I hope I've
cleared up any misunderstanding.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:17 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:01, bkil  wrote:
>
>>
>>> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are
>>> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do
>>> you know of any examples?
>>>
>>>
>> I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at with the question,
>>
>
> That "iff" was not a typo.  It's mathematical short-hand for "if and ONLY
> if."
> Does the question make sense now?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:01, bkil  wrote:

>
>> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are
>> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do
>> you know of any examples?
>>
>>
> I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at with the question,
>

That "iff" was not a typo.  It's mathematical short-hand for "if and ONLY
if."
Does the question make sense now?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

> > I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you dismount,
> > however if a certain combination of other tags are also present
> (foot=no),
> > a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing than
> > necessary (bicycle=no).
>
> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are
> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do
> you know of any examples?
>
>
I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at with the question,
but let me list a few places where I think bicycle=dismount is implicitly
encoded:
* footways;
* "road closed" (unless certain extensions are added below)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estonia_road_sign_311a.svg
* within buildings (train stations, subway stations - you are free to carry
your portable bike around here);
* one way streets from the wrong way (should push either on the sidewalk if
it exists or on the road).

Maybe I didn't make myself clear in that sentence. I referenced a statement
from a different tagging thread a few weeks ago.

The gist is that if a mapper encounters a given tag (like
bicycle=dismount), a given definite meaning should be understood. This may
be _refined_ by further tags on the same POI, especially subtags, like
highway=service + service=driveway. Meaning shall not be redefined, rather
made more specific in these cases. However, I can't say that
highway=service + not_really_service=yes, i.e., a certain combination of
independent tags may not carry a meaning that greatly contradicts with any
subset of the said tags.

For example, bicycle=dismount should be understood that bicycle access is
only allowed if a rider dismounts. However, if we had to write
bicycle=dismount + foot=no, then the meaning basically becomes: neither
riding your bicycle nor walking is allowed here, which is quite the
opposite compared to what bicycle=dismount would mean if it were placed
alone on the POI. Hence the correct way to tag this should be bicycle=no +
foot=no.

I really enjoyed Phil's joke and I recommend that you think about it as
well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Philip Barnes

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:
> > But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
> > foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
> > auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of
> > tags would
> > create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred
> > tagging
> > practice in OSM.
> > 
> > I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you
> > dismount,
> > however if a certain combination of other tags are also present
> > (foot=no),
> > a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing
> > than
> > necessary (bicycle=no).
> 
> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
> are 
> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...).
> Do 
> you know of any examples?
> 

I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
unsuitable.


A few of examples from my local big town
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:31 AM Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
> Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are
prohibited,  where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows
possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item
banned' tag is starting to sound like it would avoid further muddying the
transport mode tags.
These are a very similar situation to the one regarding bicycles that we
are discussing because we have to differentiate between possession of the
item (and how exactly it is possessed - e.g. open vs. concealed carry, vs.
locked in trunk of vehicle of a firearm), and using the item (discharging
the firearm, consuming the alcohol).  For example, it is legal in many US
National Parks to carry a loaded firearm, but in most cases it is illegal
to discharge it while in the park.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:

But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would
create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred tagging
practice in OSM.

I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you dismount,
however if a certain combination of other tags are also present (foot=no),
a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing than
necessary (bicycle=no).


I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are 
allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do 
you know of any examples?


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Alan Mackie

Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are
prohibited,  where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows
possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item
banned' tag is starting to sound like it would avoid further muddying the
transport mode tags.

*in jurisdictions that permit them in the first place of course.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 07:57, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:49:47 +0200
> bkil  wrote:
>
> > Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules
> > would like to achieve?
> > vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited +
> > moped=prohibited + unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited +
> > wheeled_luggage=prohibited
> >
> > I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent
> > a specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be
> > in possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use
> > (access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the
> > wild, they could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when
> > the park rangers are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such
> > restriction, but it might also make sense to put it onto the natural
> > area instead of each and every individual path of it.
> >
> > Am I right in that they still allow riding on the back of animals
> > (like an elephant, buffalo, yak, camel, donkey or horse) or machinery
> > that mimic limbic locomotion (like AlphaDog
> > )?
>
> In a US Wilderness Area, any form of mechanical transport is
> prohibited, so the AlphaDog is out.  Animal transportation is regulated
> on a case-by-case (and area-by-area) basis, but in general, horses,
> llamas, and donkeys are allowed, while camels and yaks are a "maybe".
> Elephants would almost certainly be prohibited because of their
> potential to damage the "wilderness character" of the area.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mark Wagner

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:49:47 +0200
bkil  wrote:

> Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules
> would like to achieve?
> vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited +
> moped=prohibited + unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited +
> wheeled_luggage=prohibited
> 
> I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent
> a specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be
> in possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use
> (access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the
> wild, they could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when
> the park rangers are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such
> restriction, but it might also make sense to put it onto the natural
> area instead of each and every individual path of it.
> 
> Am I right in that they still allow riding on the back of animals
> (like an elephant, buffalo, yak, camel, donkey or horse) or machinery
> that mimic limbic locomotion (like AlphaDog
> )?

In a US Wilderness Area, any form of mechanical transport is
prohibited, so the AlphaDog is out.  Animal transportation is regulated
on a case-by-case (and area-by-area) basis, but in general, horses,
llamas, and donkeys are allowed, while camels and yaks are a "maybe".
Elephants would almost certainly be prohibited because of their
potential to damage the "wilderness character" of the area.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 22:51, bkil  wrote:

> Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes
> make sense, let me add another consideration.
>
> This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default
> on highway=footway):
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg
>
Highway=footway implies foot=designated which in turn implies the sign you
show. The default for this is bicycle=no. (in the sense of dismount) in OSM.

>
> bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't
> feasible:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg
>
On Italian motorways pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden. The default
OSM tags are foot=no and bicycle=no (the foot=no excludes the possibility
to walk your bike on motorways - so there is no problem there)

> Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules would
> like to achieve?
> vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited + moped=prohibited +
> unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited + wheeled_luggage=prohibited
>
correct

>
> I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent a
> specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be in
> possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use
> (access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the wild, they
> could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when the park rangers
> are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such restriction, but it
> might also make sense to put it onto the natural area instead of each and
> every individual path of it.
>
Apart from the wilderness case we have at least two examples where walked
bicycles are explicitly forbidden, but other wheeled means of human
transport are not, like wheelchairs and baby buggies: the historic part of
Venice and Nymphenburg Schlosspark in Germany. And I am sure there are more
like this.
One thing which springs in mind are many underground systems (with one
notable exception that I know of: Helsinki)

So the problem does not go away. We need a generic no-bicycles-allowed-here
type of tag
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 19:33, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> I think the problem is that bicycle=*, foot=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc
> are access mode tags, not possession tags.
>
> When you dismount from a bicycle, you are now a pedestrian who is in
> possession of a certain object. The access tag that applies to you is
> foot=*. You could be on foot carrying a large box, a wide hikers'
> backpack, carrying a bottle of alcohol, pushing a wheelbarrow, or
> pushing a bicycle.

To give some more relevant examples of wheeled possessions: as a
pedestrian, you could also be pushing a baby carriage/stroller, be in
a wheelchair or be pushing a wheelchair, or be in a motorized
wheelchair.

Wheelchair could arguably be an access mode, but the baby stroller
seems to fall rather firmly into "possession" category - and so, to
me, would a pushed bicycle.

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Allroads

The image are  traffic_signs, described in traffic law. Traffic_signs must have 
set dimensions.

There is also property access rules mentioned in law. Art. 461 in Wetboek van 
Strafrecht.

The owner can express by sign with text, images, sometimes they use familiar 
images. Like here. 
“Hij die, zonder daartoe gerechtigd te zijn, zich op eens anders grond waarvan 
de toegang op een voor hem blijkbare wijze door de rechthebbende is verboden, 
bevindt of daar vee laat lopen, wordt gestraft met geldboete van de eerste 
categorie.”
express “access in an apparently way for him is prohibited by the 
rightholder”..“is punishable by a fine of the first category”
This is a access_sign. NOT a traffic_sign.
https://images.mapillary.com/8ErC5D9pxN0AzAJ8YVrEAw/thumb-2048.jpg
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8ErC5D9pxN0AzAJ8YVrEAw
“fietsen meenemen niet toegestaan”
bicycles are not allowed
here you need a hard bicycle=no.

Other situation:
Area rules, a access_sign, property access rules mentioned in law. Art. Wetboek 
van Strafrecht.
owner express “in an apparently way for him” He choose the icons. free walking 
( also next to the road )
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESsU0LrXgAMwTds?format=jpg=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESsU0L0XsAM3oay?format=jpg=large

The last not translated sentence.
“In andere gevallen verboden toegang Art. 461 Wetboek van Strafrecht.”
“In other cases prohibited access” 
With a horse, riders on designated path. Riders is mentioned, corresponding to 
the image
With a horse, walk with a horse. I do not see such image. horse with a leash. 
It is forbidden.
Where walking freely is allowed,  everywhere, you can not walk with a horse, 
because “In other cases prohibited access” no horse with a leash, there the 
horse is a hard no.
Even this asphalt road. When it is no designated path.

The owner determined. Sometimes it doesn't make sense.
We must follow, what he express,“in an apparently way for him”.
Otherwise you are in violation.

From: bkil 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:49 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not 
allowed here"?

Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes make 
sense, let me add another consideration. 

This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default on 
highway=footway):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg


bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:35, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
>> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea 
>> of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest 
>> a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a regulation key 
>> (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total bicycle prohibition 
>> would be encoded with both bicycle=no and dismounted_bicycle=no, and other 
>> dismounted_bicycle=* values can be developed for whatever the regulations 
>> are in particular situations.
>
> Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no now 
> need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added implies 
> that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no” prevail and 
> the rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.
>
> Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way, why 
> not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means dismount”? 
> Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if there is an 
> additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.

There are also many ways tagged bicycle=no which should actually have
been bicycle=dismount, because in very many cases traffic signs "no
bicycles" only apply to bicycles ridden (rather than pushed), but
editors will enter a "no bicycles" sign as bicycle=no. Either way we'd
have to do a lot of retagging.

I think the problem is that bicycle=*, foot=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc
are access mode tags, not possession tags.

When you dismount from a bicycle, you are now a pedestrian who is in
possession of a certain object. The access tag that applies to you is
foot=*. You could be on foot carrying a large box, a wide hikers'
backpack, carrying a bottle of alcohol, pushing a wheelbarrow, or
pushing a bicycle.

We do have a dog=no tag for "dogs are not allowed" which really means
"humans are not allowed to allow their dogs to enter here" (dogs can't
read the "no dogs" signs). Similarly in Mike Thompson's example, "no
alcohol" signs mean "humans are not allowed to enter here with
alcohol". Bicycles can't read signs either, but bicycle=* is already
an access mode tag. It would be strange for it to be both an access
mode tag (when ridden, applying to all bicycle=* tags except
bicycle=no) and a possession tag (when pushed or carried, applying
only to bicycle=no).

I do like Mike Thompson's suggestion of something like
bicycle_possession=no along with alcohol_posession=no - exact tag
format could be discussed, but I think logically it's the right idea.

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would
create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred tagging
practice in OSM.

I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you dismount,
however if a certain combination of other tags are also present (foot=no),
a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing than
necessary (bicycle=no).

By the way, shouldn't simply adding motor_vehicle=only be sufficient? That
mostly covers the legal definition around here.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:26 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil  wrote:
>
> bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't
> feasible:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg
>
> On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the road
> has sidewalk=!none.
>
>
>
> on motorways there is also foot=no, this is why dismounting isn’t an
> option there. Generally we assume that dismounting makes the cyclist a
> pedestrian (vast majority of bicycle=no are just the same as dismount), and
> the rest is a different kind of question (what kind of objects  are you not
> allowed to bring, including bicycles, firearms, alcohol, religious symbols,
> political symbols, animals, sneakers, scissors, face masks, fireworks, etc.
> etc.)
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

sent from a phone

> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil  wrote:
> 
> bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg
> 
> On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the road 
> has sidewalk=!none.

on motorways there is also foot=no, this is why dismounting isn’t an option 
there. Generally we assume that dismounting makes the cyclist a pedestrian 
(vast majority of bicycle=no are just the same as dismount), and the rest is a 
different kind of question (what kind of objects  are you not allowed to bring, 
including bicycles, firearms, alcohol, religious symbols, political symbols, 
animals, sneakers, scissors, face masks, fireworks, etc. etc.)

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes make
sense, let me add another consideration.

This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default on
highway=footway):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opastemerkki.jpg

bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't
feasible:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg

On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the road
has sidewalk=!none.

However, transporting a (folding) bicycle here is still allowed in the
trunk or on racks without any trickery.

Am I understanding correctly that this is what the wilderness rules would
like to achieve?
vehicle=no + scooter=prohibited + bicycle=prohibited + moped=prohibited +
unicycle=prohibited + hand_cart=prohibited + wheeled_luggage=prohibited

I think if we concentrated on this case, it would be better to invent a
specific access value to convey that they don't want to see you be in
possession of anything that could leave a track in normal use
(access=legged). When you go out with something like this in the wild, they
could rightly infer that you would want to ride it when the park rangers
are not looking. Not sure about the extent of such restriction, but it
might also make sense to put it onto the natural area instead of each and
every individual path of it.

Am I right in that they still allow riding on the back of animals (like an
elephant, buffalo, yak, camel, donkey or horse) or machinery that mimic
limbic locomotion (like AlphaDog )?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:58 PM Allroads  wrote:

> It is annoying for me too.
>
> A router discussion.
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
> Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the
> bicycle=no, which is not a hard no.
> Some qoutes.
> “Hm, but in very most cases, bicycle=no is used effectively in sense of
> bicycle=dismount, not in in sense *No bicycles here*.”
> “In my experience, bicycle=dismount is used very rarely, mostly if there
> is an explicit request to do it, in agreement with OSM intention for short
> way segments only, like e.g. narrow bridges, passes, collision danger etc.”
> “
>
> The only relevant interpretation of bicycle=no is the OSM tagging
> intention, not what I or you think about it. And that is clear - red/white
> traffic sign with a black bicycle, or legal equivalent.
>
> The routing itself is for bikers, not bicycles. Pushing bicycle is a legal
> and frequent mode of bicycle transportation. Bikers may then use such
> profiles that either penalize it either forbide it ( CF=1 for total
> ignoring, or  for navigation hint consideration )”
>
>
>
> Nothing changed.
>
> What they saying is, it is common accepted, OSM intention.
> bicycle=dismount is not often used, but very often should it be used, so
> routers take the common accepted. =no also = dismount. A hell of a job to
> set all these =dismount, tagging, what is really prohibited is better, OSM
> method. (new value?).
>
> Talking to route developers* is now  a past station!* Conclusion: no is
> not a hard no. Unfortunately, we must go further. A new value! This not
> only a bicycle problem.
>
> .
> No, new access key
> dismounted_bicycle all others must also have a equivalent, unworkable,
> more typing. Better one value, that fits all, fits the access systematic
> hierarchy.
> You must always look at this hierarchy to make routing decisions.
> The choose for a key make everything more complicated.
> Also for visualization.
>
>
> *From:* Tod Fitch
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:53 PM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle
> not allowed here"?
>
> This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts
> with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a
> “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate
> that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the
> render, it is obsoleting a straight forward and explicit tag value for a
> broken renderer.
>
> Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled
> luggage is it okay now?”.
>
> Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we
> already have “dismount”.
>
> Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up
> with a new value for that (“disassembled”?).
>
> In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle
> over a “no”.
>
> At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a
> bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of
> paths are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing
> value.
>
> Cheers!
> Tod
>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

2020-07-22 Thread Tod Fitch



> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea 
> of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest 
> a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a regulation key 
> (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total bicycle prohibition 
> would be encoded with both bicycle=no and dismounted_bicycle=no, and other 
> dismounted_bicycle=* values can be developed for whatever the regulations are 
> in particular situations.
> 
Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no now 
need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added implies 
that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no” prevail and the 
rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.

Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way, why 
not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means dismount”? 
Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if there is an 
additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.

Cheers!

—Tod





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Mike Thompson

bicycle_possession=no

similar pattern could be used for other prohibited items (vs. mode of
transportation), e.g.
alcohol_posession=no
firearm_possession=no

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34 PM Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200
> Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> > And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
> >
> > Are these bicycles?
> > 1.
> >
> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
> >
> > 2.
> > http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
> >
> > 3.
> > http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
> >
> > 4.
> >
> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg
>
> In a US Wilderness Area, 3 and 4 are definitely prohibited, as is bkil's
> folding bicycle.  2 is probably okay, as long as neither you nor any
> other member of your party are in possession of any of the other parts.
>  1 is clearly okay.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Allroads

It is annoying for me too.

A router discussion.
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/79
Talk about a situation the use of use_sidepath and dismount. And the 
bicycle=no, which is not a hard no.
Some qoutes.
“Hm, but in very most cases, bicycle=no is used effectively in sense of 
bicycle=dismount, not in in sense No bicycles here.”
“In my experience, bicycle=dismount is used very rarely, mostly if there is an 
explicit request to do it, in agreement with OSM intention for short way 
segments only, like e.g. narrow bridges, passes, collision danger etc.”
“
The only relevant interpretation of bicycle=no is the OSM tagging intention, 
not what I or you think about it. And that is clear - red/white traffic sign 
with a black bicycle, or legal equivalent.

The routing itself is for bikers, not bicycles. Pushing bicycle is a legal and 
frequent mode of bicycle transportation. Bikers may then use such profiles that 
either penalize it either forbide it ( CF=1 for total ignoring, or  for 
navigation hint consideration )”



Nothing changed.

What they saying is, it is common accepted, OSM intention. bicycle=dismount is 
not often used, but very often should it be used, so routers take the common 
accepted. =no also = dismount. A hell of a job to set all these =dismount, 
tagging, what is really prohibited is better, OSM method. (new value?). 

Talking to route developers is now  a past station! Conclusion: no is not a 
hard no. Unfortunately, we must go further. A new value! This not only a 
bicycle problem.

.

No, new access key
dismounted_bicycle all others must also have a equivalent, unworkable, more 
typing. Better one value, that fits all, fits the access systematic hierarchy.
You must always look at this hierarchy to make routing decisions.
The choose for a key make everything more complicated.
Also for visualization. 


From: Tod Fitch 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:53 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not 
allowed here"?

This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with 
some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a 
“maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, 
really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting 
a straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer. 

Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled 
luggage is it okay now?”.

Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already 
have “dismount”.

Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up with 
a new value for that (“disassembled”?).

In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle over 
a “no”.

At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a bicycle 
at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths are so 
marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing value.

Cheers!
Tod

Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Tod Fitch

This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with 
some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a 
“maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, 
really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting 
a straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer.

Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled 
luggage is it okay now?”.

Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already 
have “dismount”.

Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up with 
a new value for that (“disassembled”?).

In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle over 
a “no”.

At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a bicycle 
at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths are so 
marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing value.

Cheers!
Tod

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:34 AM, Allroads  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg 
> 
> Geen toegang:
> - met (brom)fietsen.
> No access:
> - with bicycles.
> This is written, grammatically and  orthographly, in a way, that the 
> "vehicle" is meant.
> explicit the bicycle no access.
> 
> This is privat land, Staatsbosbeheer, owned or in control, all over the 
> Netherlands, you see these type of signs, arranged in the same way, the 
> layout.
> Mostly all of these roads/tracks path are permissive
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg
>  <>
> - Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen
> -Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads.
> Here is written what is allowed.
> But more important:
> Overigens verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S.
> Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law.
> The word  “Overigens” means:  all the other which is not mentioned above on 
> the sign
> Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others then 
> “wegen” roads.
> 
> A active Openmapstreet member got  a ticket for pushing his bike on a not 
> allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer.
> 
> This sign with “Overigens”  of  the private organisation Natuurmonumenten, 
> you find them all over the Netherlands, with the same layout.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘'
> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding 
> this",
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
> 
> That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)
> 
> ‘'
> 
> Text on sign: “Overigens” and “- met fietsen”  "bicycle vehicle itself is 
> prohibited”
> 
> I need a value .*=explicit_no for “the vehicle” or some other value that 
> means the same. “the bicycle is not allowed”
> 
> This is for all kind of transportation and vehicles. Pushing carry/not 
> allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push your 
> bike, are you sure that was what it meant?
> Do you have a picture of the sign?
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Mark Wagner

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
> 
> Are these bicycles?
> 1. 
> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
> 
> 2.
> http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
> 
> 3.
> http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
> 
> 4.
> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg

In a US Wilderness Area, 3 and 4 are definitely prohibited, as is bkil's
folding bicycle.  2 is probably okay, as long as neither you nor any
other member of your party are in possession of any of the other parts.
 1 is clearly okay.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Tod Fitch wrote:
> This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it
> starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”)
> treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new
> term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse
> than tagging for the render, it is obsoleting a straight forward
> and explicit tag value for a broken renderer.

No, you have got that the wrong way round, and it would be kind for you to be a 
bit surer of your facts before throwing around accusations of brokenness.

People have been using bicycle=no to tag footways where cycling is banned, but 
where you may push a bike, since the very earliest days of OSM. Here's an 
instance from 2006: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/2606296/history . I'm 
pretty sure there weren't _any_ OSM routers in existence then.

The reason that routers will sometimes route via such a path, with an 
instruction to dismount, is that this tagging practice has always been 
widespread. It doesn't "start with some routers". It started with the tagging.

Fairly obviously, if the users of a particular router complain to the router's 
authors that they're being prevented from plotting a viable route, then the 
authors are pretty obviously going to change the router so they stop getting 
complaints.

So either fix the existing instances in OSM of bicycle=no being used to mean 
bicycle=dismount, or introduce a new tag.

Richard
cycle.travel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

>
> My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
> would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
> bicycle=no ways.
>
>
Yes, I think that would be workable.


> Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I
> fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has
> a formidable inertia.
>
> J
>
>
I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture.

Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise that most countries do
not have such restrictions, hence regardless of how you would like to
redefine `bicycle=no`, half of the world would still keep tagging it
incorrectly.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

>
> Yes, my guess is that early mappers felt no need for bicycle=dismount
> because it was simply presumed that foot=yes + bicycle=no meant the same
> thing -- the assumption of a very bicycle-friendly culture!
>
> The obvious problem with bicycle=closed is that it's rarely used so
> routing software will probably not be looking for it, and so will
> happily send bicycles along bicycle=closed ways. In fact, I wanted to
> test some routers but I can't find a single bicycle=closed way currently
> tagged on the whole map.
>
> The other subtler problem is that it might be possible to
> confuse"bicycle=closed" with"bicycle=folded" especially for non-native
> English speakers.
>
>
That was a value deprecated by 2008 (or a typo on the wiki). See my other
answer from 2008 that already uses `bicycle=no`.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb



On 7/22/2020 11:34 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:



On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then
I'd suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key.
Total bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.


Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no
now need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added
implies that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no”
prevail and the rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.

Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way,
why not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means
dismount”? Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if
there is an additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.


My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
bicycle=no ways.

Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I
fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has
a formidable inertia.

J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Florimond Berthoux

’bicycle’ tag is for the transport mode, cycling.
I only use dismount if there is a board saying so.
Why ? Because I tag the board not the written law in a book.

About the value, I propose :
bicycle=banned

Le mer. 22 juil. 2020 à 17:36, Tod Fitch  a écrit :

>
>
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
>
> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
> idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd
> suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
> regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total
> bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
> dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
> developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.
>
> Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no
> now need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added
> implies that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no”
> prevail and the rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.
>
> Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way,
> why not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means
> dismount”? Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if
> there is an additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.
>
> Cheers!
>
> —Tod
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Florimond Berthoux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb


On 7/22/2020 11:27 AM, bkil wrote:

According to OSM wiki history, `bicycle=dismount` is a pretty recent
tag, perhaps less than 7 years old. I think `bicycle=no` was invented
much earlier. Hence it is you who wants to redefine a well established tag.

According to the first version of access=* in 2006:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=3772
 >  Closed to or unsuitable for bicycle traffic



Yes, my guess is that early mappers felt no need for bicycle=dismount
because it was simply presumed that foot=yes + bicycle=no meant the same
thing -- the assumption of a very bicycle-friendly culture!

The obvious problem with bicycle=closed is that it's rarely used so
routing software will probably not be looking for it, and so will
happily send bicycles along bicycle=closed ways. In fact, I wanted to
test some routers but I can't find a single bicycle=closed way currently
tagged on the whole map.

The other subtler problem is that it might be possible to
confuse"bicycle=closed" with"bicycle=folded" especially for non-native
English speakers.

J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Peter Elderson

bicycle=leave
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 22 jul. 2020 om 17:36 schreef Tod Fitch :

>
>
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
>
> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
> idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd
> suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
> regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total
> bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
> dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
> developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.
>
> Why? The suggestion that all the places that properly tagged bicycles=no
> now need to be revisited and have a new dismounted_bicycles=no tag added
> implies that the people who took “no” to mean something other than “no”
> prevail and the rest of us have to go back and re-tag things.
>
> Since many miles/kilometers of ways will need to be retagged either way,
> why not go with the straight forward “no means no” and “dismount means
> dismount”? Makes a lot more sense to me that “no only really means no if
> there is an additional dismounted_bicycle=no” tag too.
>
> Cheers!
>
> —Tod
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

When it was split in 2008, it had the following proposed values:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle=119888


   - bicycle=yes 
   - bicycle=no 
   - bicycle=designated
   
   - bicycle=private
   
   - bicycle=permissive
   
   - bicycle=destination
   

   - bicycle=unknown
   



Documentation for dismount appeared around 2010 on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle=517641

> Where cycling is not allowed on short sections of signposted cycleroutes
(typically in the UK on narrow bridges and underpasses which are shared
with pedestrians), there are usually signs saying "Cyclists dismount".
These have been tagged as follows (300+ uses as of 2010-08-15)

It occured on this page in 2014:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=1108382

Note that similarly, you may see a restriction for `agricultural=no` on
various roads around here, but you may still transport them over trailers
("possess") on the very same routes. Restrictions in this case were needed
because such vehicles are usually much slower than traffic and/or are much
more destructive to the road surface.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

It's not the routers' fault. They correctly reflect the mappers'
intentions. In almost all cases when we map bicycle=no it means, according
to the law, you can pass if you walk your bicycle, because you are
considered a pedestrian. We simply missed to realise that we overlooked the
rare cases where you are not allowed to walk your bicycle.
>From time to time, we discuss this issue, but have so far not come up with
a solution.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, 16:54 Tod Fitch,  wrote:

> This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts
> with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a
> “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate
> that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the
> render, it is obsoleting a straight forward and explicit tag value for a
> broken renderer.
>
> Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled
> luggage is it okay now?”.
>
> Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we
> already have “dismount”.
>
> Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up
> with a new value for that (“disassembled”?).
>
> In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle
> over a “no”.
>
> At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a
> bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of
> paths are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing
> value.
>
> Cheers!
> Tod
>
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:34 AM, Allroads  wrote:
>
>
> https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg
> Geen toegang:
> - met (brom)fietsen.
> No access:
> - with bicycles.
> This is written, grammatically and  orthographly, in a way, that the
> "vehicle" is meant.
> explicit the bicycle no access.
>
> This is privat land, Staatsbosbeheer, owned or in control, all over the
> Netherlands, you see these type of signs, arranged in the same way, the
> layout.
> Mostly all of these roads/tracks path are permissive
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg
> - Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen
> -Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads.
> Here is written what is allowed.
> But more important:
> Overigens verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S.
> Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law.
> The word  “Overigens” means:  all the other which is not mentioned above
> on the sign
> Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others then
> “wegen” roads.
>
> A active Openmapstreet member got  a ticket for pushing his bike on a not
> allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer.
>
> This sign with “Overigens”  of  the private organisation Natuurmonumenten,
> you find them all over the Netherlands, with the same layout.
>
>
>
> ‘'
>
>> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign
>> forbidding this",
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>> not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
>>
>
> That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)
>
> ‘'
>
> Text on sign: “Overigens” and “- met fietsen”  "bicycle vehicle itself is
> prohibited”
>
> I need a value .*=explicit_no for “the vehicle” or some other value that
> means the same. “the bicycle is not allowed”
>
> This is for all kind of transportation and vehicles. Pushing carry/not
> allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push
> your bike, are you sure that was what it meant?
> Do you have a picture of the sign?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

> I wonder if carrying a bicycle (possibly folded) would also be prohibited
> on these unpaved ways?
>
> As was mentioned in the last thread, the rules for most federal wilderness
> areas in the USA strictly prohibit possession of any bicycle on the
> property, whether the wheels ever touch the ground or not. Rangers will
> fine the violators.
>

We don't have such areas around here but I have heard about them. The
concept is that tracked vehicles disturb and compact the ground and kill
many creatures that you are not aware of compared to bipedal locomotion. It
is thus imperative that if you dismount and push the bike, it still leaves
a track and still does a bit of destruction along the way. Wooden ways
similar to that depicted may also be more dangerous (and you could also
easily get a flat tire along the way and then potentially want to sue them).

If you were to carry it on your back (for whatever twisted reason), it
would not cause any harm, but then what is the point of carrying a bike
around for dozens of kilometers in the wilderness?

I think they usually don't have many provisions for foldable bicycles in
the USA because it doesn't have as much culture as in Europe or in the UK.

> To me, the simplest and most logical tagging approach would be:
>  - bicycle=no means no bicycles, ridden or otherwise
>  - bicycle=dismount means pushing is allowed
>  - other values can be used for even more restrictive situations:
> bicycle=carried, bicycle=folded, bicycle=boxed...
>
> But the problem with this, as I've learned, is decades of tagging by
> mappers who had no experience with the idea of bicycles being completely
> prohibited, so used bicycle=no to mean bicycle=dismount in situations where
> foot traffic was permitted.
>
> If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
> idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd
> suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
> regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total
> bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
> dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
> developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.
>
> Jason
>

According to OSM wiki history, `bicycle=dismount` is a pretty recent tag,
perhaps less than 7 years old. I think `bicycle=no` was invented much
earlier. Hence it is you who wants to redefine a well established tag.

According to the first version of access=* in 2006:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=3772
>  Closed to or unsuitable for bicycle traffic
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb

On 7/22/2020 10:34 AM, Allroads wrote:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg
- Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen
-Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads.
Here is written what is allowed.
But more important:
Overigens verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S.
Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law.
The word “Overigens” means: all the other which is not mentioned
above on the sign
Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others
then “wegen” roads.
A active Openmapstreet member got a ticket for pushing his bike on a
not allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer.

I wonder if carrying a bicycle (possibly folded) would also be
prohibited on these unpaved ways?

As was mentioned in the last thread, the rules for most federal
wilderness areas in the USA strictly prohibit possession of any bicycle
on the property, whether the wheels ever touch the ground or not.
Rangers will fine the violators.

To me, the simplest and most logical tagging approach would be:
- bicycle=no means no bicycles, ridden or otherwise
- bicycle=dismount means pushing is allowed
- other values can be used for even more restrictive situations:
bicycle=carried, bicycle=folded, bicycle=boxed...

But the problem with this, as I've learned, is decades of tagging by
mappers who had no experience with the idea of bicycles being completely
prohibited, so used bicycle=no to mean bicycle=dismount in situations
where foot traffic was permitted.

If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the
idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then
I'd suggest a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a
regulation key (like smoking=*) rather than a vehicle access key. Total
bicycle prohibition would be encoded with both bicycle=no and
dismounted_bicycle=no, and other dismounted_bicycle=* values can be
developed for whatever the regulations are in particular situations.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Allroads

https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg
Geen toegang:
- met (brom)fietsen.
No access:
- with bicycles.
This is written, grammatically and orthographly, in a way, that the "vehicle"
is meant.
explicit the bicycle no access.

This is privat land, Staatsbosbeheer, owned or in control, all over the
Netherlands, you see these type of signs, arranged in the same way, the layout.
Mostly all of these roads/tracks path are permissive

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg
- Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen
-Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads.
Here is written what is allowed.
But more important:
Overigens verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S.
Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law.
The word “Overigens” means: all the other which is not mentioned above on the
sign
Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others then
“wegen” roads.

A active Openmapstreet member got a ticket for pushing his bike on a not
allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer.

This sign with “Overigens” of the private organisation Natuurmonumenten, you
find them all over the Netherlands, with the same layout.

‘'
bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding
this",

Indeed.

not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".

That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)

‘'

Text on sign: “Overigens” and “- met fietsen” "bicycle vehicle itself is
prohibited”

I need a value .*=explicit_no for “the vehicle” or some other value that means
the same. “the bicycle is not allowed”

This is for all kind of transportation and vehicles. Pushing carry/not allowed.

It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push your
bike, are you sure that was what it meant?
Do you have a picture of the sign?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Alan Mackie

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 14:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 22 Jul 2020, 14:24 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign
> forbidding this",
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
>
>
> That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)
>
> Maybe prohibited_item?
>

Would bicycle=contraband work? It's stretching the definition a little, but
does have the emphasis on 'prohibited item' rather than 'prohibited mode'.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging




22 Jul 2020, 14:24 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding 
>> this",
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>>
>> not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
>>
>
> That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)
>
Maybe prohibited_item?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

>
> On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually
>> have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of
>> size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes).
>>
> they might not even allow big boxes, according to the current situation
> (empty or full).
>
>
Yes, the terms of service of transport companies around here clearly state
luggage restrictions regarding dimensions and weight. However, the same
document waives just these limits in certain well defined categories
(foldable bicycles, strolles, ski equipment, plants, etc).

Of course they can still apply blanket terms to not let you board if you do
something unreasonable, like carry a 10 meter high foldable, a motorized
stroller or something like that.

nice project, although it looks as if it may get far too heavy to carry
>> around once it is realized.
>>
>
>
As mentioned, there exist both concept and mass produced alternatives that
have tiny luggage wheels just to aid carry, I can post some links if you
haven't seen such before. Although, you generally rarely carry your
foldable for extended periods - it is usually the one doing the carrying!

I probably wouldn't understand what `bicycle=explicit_no` means if I didn't
know about this thread. A core concept to follow when inventing OSM tags is
that smart enough individuals should be capable of deciphering what a tag
means just by reading all tags (and/or the possible values for the key) of
the given POI and the context even without consulting the wiki.

It's a funny thing that I wanted to recommend `bicycle=prohibited` at the
same time instant that Paul posted his reply! Not sure what the _best_ tag
would be, but at least this could be somewhat understood.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Paul Allen

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign
> forbidding this",
>

Indeed.

not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
>

That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding 
this",
not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".


Jul 21, 2020, 23:48 by allroadswo...@gmail.com:

> There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is 
> prohibited. Mostly, private owned land with a access_sign.
> “the bicycle” “transportation vehicle” is prohibited.
>  
> Because, navigation programs do not us bicycle=no, as a hard no, there is the 
> need for a extra value.
> bicycle=explicit_no, means “the vehicle” is prohibited.
>  
> Why a value?
> We need a one value, otherwise a lot of more keys, which makes it things 
> complicated. At the end it means for all explicit no!
> bicycle_pushed <>> => no <>
> motorcycle_pushed=no
> horse_pushed=no ;-)
> moped_pushed=no
> mofa_pushed=no
> etc.
>  
> Better one value, key=explicit_no
>  
> What do you think?
>  
> If we do not solve this problem, this stays forever.
>  
> On the wiki page dismount, this bicycle_pushed is mentioned.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount
> For me a wrong advise.
> The problem is wider for more transportation modes, even for other product to 
> carry around.
>  
> Private access_sign rules, can go much further then traffic_sign. In what is 
> prohibited.
> What the owner think and write down on the sign is valid.
> The skateboard is prohibited, means you can not carry a skateboard around 
> with you.
> skateboard=explicit_no
>  
> I need this value to do it correctly. Where the bicycle is no allowed. Or a 
> other value meaning the same.
>  
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb bkil :

> I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry
> with me (within rational limits).
>
> I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think
> that they have the right to search your box to check whether it contains
> legally defined bicycles - that could only be done by a police officer and
> would need a warrant, so I think we can always carry bicycles in a box.
> Mind you that luggage could also have wheels.
>
>

whether a warrant is needed, will depend largely on the local jurisdiction.
For example it isn't the same situation whether you are in Bavaria or in
Berlin.



> For circumventing carry-on rules, it was common knowledge that if you
> removed the front tire, it could not be ridden anymore and could be
> understood to be not a bicycle, rather it was classified as "bicycle parts".
>


did you see my picture 3 from above? It deals exactly with this.



> If you carry a front wheel and your friend carries the rest, can you enter
> the park? Both of you are only carrying parts, and none of you
> possess bicycles.
>


you see. It isn't clear at all what you have to do in order to make your
bike not a bike any more, and I guess this probably would also depend on
the judge, if this would go to court.



>
> On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually
> have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of
> size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes).
>


they might not even allow big boxes, according to the current situation
(empty or full).



> Just for kicks:
>
> https://ecofriend.com/bike-that-folds-into-an-a3-paper-size-box-is-rightly-named-the-a3-bicycle.html
>


nice project, although it looks as if it may get far too heavy to carry
around once it is realized.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

This may all sound tangential or nitpicking to you, but to those with the
right equipment, the tags you propose, depending on scenario would simply
be misleading.

A photo would help to understand the exact place, but I think you could
easily push your foldable bike through narrow passages if you rotate your
handlebar and/or fold your pedals.

If you can fold your bicycle in 15 seconds, it integrates a
visually protective cover and has small luggage-wheels for moving when
folded, it would not cause a problem to take a 100m detour in the park if
it could save you kilometers and/or going into dangerous traffic. I've seen
such designs in mass production, but wouldn't want to do much advertising
here.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:06 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> The boxes business is most likely leading us a bit up the Nymphenburg
> Schlosspark garden path.
> The real issue is routing for bicycles.
> Many (bicycle) routers I know would route you against (short) stretches of
> one-way roads or on short stretches of (bicycle=no) footpaths, so in those
> cases it is important to be sure that you distinguish between hard-no and
> soft-no for bicycles.
> I have come across another type of hard-no for bicycles in the form of
> chicane-type cycle barriers too narrow to push a bicycle (or a wheelchair)
> through.
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:48, bkil  wrote:
>
>> I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry
>> with me (within rational limits).
>>
>> I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think
>> that they have the right to search your box to check whether it contains
>> legally defined bicycles - that could only be done by a police officer and
>> would need a warrant, so I think we can always carry bicycles in a box.
>> Mind you that luggage could also have wheels.
>>
>> For circumventing carry-on rules, it was common knowledge that if you
>> removed the front tire, it could not be ridden anymore and could be
>> understood to be not a bicycle, rather it was classified as "bicycle
>> parts". Some thought this could be used to transport bicycles on a train
>> for free, but it was actually oversized for the definition of luggage, so
>> the actual deciding factor was always the kindness of the staff.
>>
>> If you carry a front wheel and your friend carries the rest, can you
>> enter the park? Both of you are only carrying parts, and none of you
>> possess bicycles.
>>
>> On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually
>> have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of
>> size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes).
>>
>> Just for kicks:
>>
>> https://ecofriend.com/bike-that-folds-into-an-a3-paper-size-box-is-rightly-named-the-a3-bicycle.html
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and then you would also need
>>> bicycle_carried=no
>>> and
>>> bicycle_carried_in_a_box=no
>>> (the latter is rare and could be seen as another way of saying
>>> carrying_boxes=no or maybe carrying_boxes:conditional =no@(any_dimension
>>> > 0.3m)
>>>
>>> And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
>>>
>>> Are these bicycles?
>>> 1.
>>> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
>>>
>>> 4.
>>>
>>> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Cheers Martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

The boxes business is most likely leading us a bit up the Nymphenburg
Schlosspark garden path.
The real issue is routing for bicycles.
Many (bicycle) routers I know would route you against (short) stretches of
one-way roads or on short stretches of (bicycle=no) footpaths, so in those
cases it is important to be sure that you distinguish between hard-no and
soft-no for bicycles.
I have come across another type of hard-no for bicycles in the form of
chicane-type cycle barriers too narrow to push a bicycle (or a wheelchair)
through.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 11:48, bkil  wrote:

> I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry
> with me (within rational limits).
>
> I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think
> that they have the right to search your box to check whether it contains
> legally defined bicycles - that could only be done by a police officer and
> would need a warrant, so I think we can always carry bicycles in a box.
> Mind you that luggage could also have wheels.
>
> For circumventing carry-on rules, it was common knowledge that if you
> removed the front tire, it could not be ridden anymore and could be
> understood to be not a bicycle, rather it was classified as "bicycle
> parts". Some thought this could be used to transport bicycles on a train
> for free, but it was actually oversized for the definition of luggage, so
> the actual deciding factor was always the kindness of the staff.
>
> If you carry a front wheel and your friend carries the rest, can you enter
> the park? Both of you are only carrying parts, and none of you
> possess bicycles.
>
> On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually
> have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of
> size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes).
>
> Just for kicks:
>
> https://ecofriend.com/bike-that-folds-into-an-a3-paper-size-box-is-rightly-named-the-a3-bicycle.html
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056
>>
>>
>>
>> and then you would also need
>> bicycle_carried=no
>> and
>> bicycle_carried_in_a_box=no
>> (the latter is rare and could be seen as another way of saying
>> carrying_boxes=no or maybe carrying_boxes:conditional =no@(any_dimension
>> > 0.3m)
>>
>> And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
>>
>> Are these bicycles?
>> 1.
>> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
>>
>> 2.
>> http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
>>
>> 3.
>> http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
>>
>> 4.
>>
>> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

In Hungary, you are not considered a driver when you are pushing a bicycle
or a moped, but you are if you push a motorcycle.

In museums, I think I would tag cloakroom:use=mandatory or something like
that. It happened to me in the past that I've checked in my portable
bicycle in the cloakroom when I didn't have a lock at hand and they didn't
mind.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:43 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb bkil :
>
>> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want
>> to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the
>> bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push
>> bikes around would risk them hopping on the bike when nobody is looking.
>>
>> What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a bike
>> or am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable bike? A
>> foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage around here without
>> an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the type of luggage I can carry
>> onto the premises?
>>
>> Also, I'd invent something like this:
>> dog=carried
>>
>
>
> in some places you are not allowed to carry big objects (sometimes not
> even small bags like lady's handbags or umbrellas), e.g. in certain
> museums. On the other hand, I am not sure we even need to tag these things,
> of course you cannot bring your bike to an indoor museum typically. Or a
> huge box. What about pushing a motorcycle, I believe legally you are a
> pedestrian as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry
with me (within rational limits).

I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think
that they have the right to search your box to check whether it contains
legally defined bicycles - that could only be done by a police officer and
would need a warrant, so I think we can always carry bicycles in a box.
Mind you that luggage could also have wheels.

For circumventing carry-on rules, it was common knowledge that if you
removed the front tire, it could not be ridden anymore and could be
understood to be not a bicycle, rather it was classified as "bicycle
parts". Some thought this could be used to transport bicycles on a train
for free, but it was actually oversized for the definition of luggage, so
the actual deciding factor was always the kindness of the staff.

If you carry a front wheel and your friend carries the rest, can you enter
the park? Both of you are only carrying parts, and none of you
possess bicycles.

On the other hand, the terms of services of transport companies usually
have written provisions for carrying on folded bicycles irrespective of
size limits (for example, they even allow folded mountain bikes).

Just for kicks:
https://ecofriend.com/bike-that-folds-into-an-a3-paper-size-box-is-rightly-named-the-a3-bicycle.html

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056
>
>
>
> and then you would also need
> bicycle_carried=no
> and
> bicycle_carried_in_a_box=no
> (the latter is rare and could be seen as another way of saying
> carrying_boxes=no or maybe carrying_boxes:conditional =no@(any_dimension
> > 0.3m)
>
> And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
>
> Are these bicycles?
> 1.
> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
>
> 2.
> http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
>
> 3.
> http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
>
> 4.
>
> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg
>
> etc.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb bkil :

> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want
> to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the
> bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push
> bikes around would risk them hopping on the bike when nobody is looking.
>
> What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a bike
> or am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable bike? A
> foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage around here without
> an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the type of luggage I can carry
> onto the premises?
>
> Also, I'd invent something like this:
> dog=carried
>


in some places you are not allowed to carry big objects (sometimes not even
small bags like lady's handbags or umbrellas), e.g. in certain museums. On
the other hand, I am not sure we even need to tag these things, of course
you cannot bring your bike to an indoor museum typically. Or a huge box.
What about pushing a motorcycle, I believe legally you are a pedestrian as
well.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-07-22 Thread Philip Barnes

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:32 +0200, bkil wrote:
> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only
> want to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and
> pushing the bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and
> allowing people to push bikes around would risk them hopping on the
> bike when nobody is looking.
> 
> What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a
> bike or am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable
> bike? A foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage
> around here without an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the
> type of luggage I can carry onto the premises?
> 
> Also, I'd invent something like this:dog=carried

I know this is a very old joke, but
The first time I went on the London Underground, I saw a sign saying
'dogs must be carried'. I then spent half an hour looking for a dog.

More seriously that tag does make sense. The sign is used on escalators
on the London Underground so imagine it applies on escalators
elsewhere.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want to
go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the bike
for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push bikes
around would risk them hopping on the bike when nobody is looking.

What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a bike or
am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable bike? A
foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage around here without
an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the type of luggage I can carry
onto the premises?

Also, I'd invent something like this:
dog=carried

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:22 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Apart from the island parts of Venice, there is this "famous" example,
> cited everytime the argument comes up: Bicycles, even walke, are not
> allowed in the Schlosspark Nympenburg (see leaflet):
>
> 
> "Das Mitführen von Fahrrädern ist im ganzen Park nicht gestattet. Nutzen
> Sie bitte das Angebot an Fahrradständern an den Eingängen."
> It appears that we still have no commonly agreed tag in OSM to indicate
> that type of restriction. OSM's "bicycle=no" is used to mean "riding of
> bicycle is forbidden" or  "you cannot bring a bicycle here".
> I agree we need a tag for a "hard" no-bicycle tag.
> In theory we do have the bicycle=dismount tag for not-riding a bicycle,
> but, unfortunately we do have too many existing uses bicycle=no in the
> database that in reality should be bicycle=dismount
> (Taginfo:
> 1?078?526 bicycle=no
> 79528 bicycle=dismount)
> I do not like "explicit-no", but I do not have any alternative suggestion
> either. bicycle=hard-no ? bicycle=prohibited ?
>
> I guess there is a similar problem with dogs: there are places where you
> cannot bring a dog, and there are places where you can not walk your dog,
> but you may carry it.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 10:32, Oliver Simmons 
> wrote:
>
>> It seems highly strange that you wouldn't even be allowed to carry/push
>> your bike, are you sure that was what it meant?
>> Do you have a picture of the sign?
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, 22:50 Allroads,  wrote:
>>
>>> There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is
>>> prohibited. Mostly, private owned land with a access_sign.
>>> “the bicycle” “transportation vehicle” is prohibited.
>>>
>>> Because, navigation programs do not us bicycle=no, as a hard no, there
>>> is the need for a extra value.
>>> bicycle=explicit_no, means “the vehicle” is prohibited.
>>>
>>> Why a value?
>>> We need a one value, otherwise a lot of more keys, which makes it things
>>> complicated. At the end it means for all explicit no!
>>> bicycle_pushed=no
>>> motorcycle_pushed=no
>>> horse_pushed=no ;-)
>>> moped_pushed=no
>>> mofa_pushed=no
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Better one value, key=explicit_no
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> If we do not solve this problem, this stays forever.
>>>
>>> On the wiki page dismount, this bicycle_pushed is mentioned.
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount
>>> For me a wrong advise.
>>> The problem is wider for more transportation modes, even for other
>>> product to carry around.
>>>
>>> Private access_sign rules, can go much further then traffic_sign. In
>>> what is prohibited.
>>> What the owner think and write down on the sign is valid.
>>> The skateboard is prohibited, means you can not carry a skateboard
>>> around with you.
>>> skateboard=explicit_no
>>>
>>> I need this value to do it correctly. Where the bicycle is no allowed.
>>> Or a other value meaning the same.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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



sent from a phone

> On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056


and then you would also need
bicycle_carried=no
and
bicycle_carried_in_a_box=no
(the latter is rare and could be seen as another way of saying 
carrying_boxes=no or maybe carrying_boxes:conditional =no@(any_dimension > 0.3m)

And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.

Are these bicycles?
1. 
https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG

2.
http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg

3.
http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281

4.
https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg

etc.

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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