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

On 25/07/2020 16.40, Allroads wrote: The earlier mentioned, bicycle=leave This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign. More native English speakers can give a comment on that? I don't know that I would guess that's what that means... (Strictly from a "what's most reasonable, ignoring

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

On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 16:42, Allroads wrote: > bicycle=leave > This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign. > More native English speakers can give a comment on that? I would not have understood it without the explanation given by Peter below. ("If you are with bike, you will have to

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

Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het > volgende geschreven: > > The earlier mentioned, > bicycle=leave > This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign. > More native English speakers can give a comment on that? If you're not with bike, the sign/access

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

Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het volgende geschreven: > So, now we need also a hard yes. That you must bring a bicycle with you. That's an attribute of the bus service/transfer, not the road, I think. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list >

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

https://images.mapillary.com/8ErC5D9pxN0AzAJ8YVrEAw/thumb-2048.jpg with extra text, for pushing carry a bicycle. "fietsen meenemen niet toegestaan" "not allowed to bring bicycles" This is a privat acces_sign, guaranteed by access law, expressed by “access in an apparently way for him is

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

sent from a phone > On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:28, Jo wrote: > > In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so > accompanied by a bicycle +1, in the German town of Tübingen there was also such a Bus which brought cyclists up the hill (it is suspended for many years now

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

On 25/07/2020 14.26, Jo wrote: In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.

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

In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle. Polyglot On Thu, Jul 23, 2020,

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

Jul 23, 2020, 23:30 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke <> mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> > > 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. >

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

sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, 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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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): >

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.,

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 >

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

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

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

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=*,

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

’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,

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

It happens in some places, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056 Jul 22, 2020, 10:29 by oliversi...@gmail.com: >

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

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,

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

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.

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

sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2019, at 17:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> (Special permission for extreme weather should be encoded with some >> variation of the conditional access tag scheme.) >> > +1 > > In Poland it is countrywide law applying for all sidewalks, not signed >

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

8 Nov 2019, 09:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 7. Nov 2019, at 18:54, Jmapb via Tagging <>> tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why data >>

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

7 Nov 2019, 18:53 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 11/6/2019 3:08 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> bicycle_pushed=no? >> >> bicycle_pushed is more clearfor someone encountering it >> for the first time -bicycle=total_ban is a bit confusing >> >> Especially as in some

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

sent from a phone On 7. Nov 2019, at 18:54, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking bicycles. the tag “bicycle”

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

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:13:49 -0500 Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 + > > marc marc wrote: > > > >> ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden > >> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ? > >> > > It's a sign for

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

Jmapb wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why > data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, > should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking > bicycles. This is exactly why we have a bicycle=dismount tag. Because mapping is

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

On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 + marc marc wrote: ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ? It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal wilderness area, and the situation is a little

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

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 + marc marc wrote: > Hello, > > Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit : > > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States > > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden > > can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ? > It's a

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

On 11/6/2019 3:08 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: bicycle_pushed=no? bicycle_pushed is more clear for someone encountering it for the first time - bicycle=total_ban is a bit confusing Especially as in some places access for bicycles may be "never" (explicit "no bicycle" signs) or "only during

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

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:53:16PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Ok, Steve. It's not a turnstile, but a kissing gate, and there is no > Christchurch College Park, but the gate is behind Christchurch in Merton > Field. > But it is impossible to get through if you carry any large object (or if >

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

Ok, Steve. It's not a turnstile, but a kissing gate, and there is no Christchurch College Park, but the gate is behind Christchurch in Merton Field. But it is impossible to get through if you carry any large object (or if you are large yourself). Here it is on the map,

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

Am Do., 7. Nov. 2019 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb marc marc < marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>: > Hello, > > Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit : > > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States > > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden > > can you share the a picture of this

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

Hello, Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit : > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ? Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing

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

On 06/11/2019 23:13, Volker Schmidt wrote: Just to add another aspect: There is a full-hight turnstile in Christchurch College Park in Oxford where bicycles and pushchairs do physically not pass. There is no such place as Christchurch College Park in Oxford. -- Steve -- This email has been

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

Just to add another aspect: There is a full-hight turnstile in Christchurch College Park in Oxford where bicycles and pushchairs do physically not pass. But seriously let's decide on a taking for a hard bicycle=no. As far as dog=yes|no is concerned I am sure this tag is used by dog owners to tag

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

On 06/11/19 21:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 09:16 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>: Also, it may be OK to carry bicycle in a box and not OK to push (not road access, but in some train you are not allowed to enter with bicycle,

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

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > IMHO we need neither bicycle=dismount, nor similar tags for mofas, > mopeds, motorcycles and other vehicles. If you dismount, you are > a pedestrian (according to many jurisdictions) But not according to all justifications, as I have explained wrt the UK. > As this

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

Their are Government rules and landowner rules. These landowner rules are mostly expressed on the border of their land with a access_sign > access_sign rules >“typically not traffic rules but additional” equally important In the rural, their lots of these access_signs. Mostly

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

Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Allroads : > Not only for bicycle dismount is used. These mofa moped motorcycle, need > also wiki pages. > > IMHO we need neither bicycle=dismount, nor similar tags for mofas, mopeds, motorcycles and other vehicles. If you dismount, you are a pedestrian

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

Yes, indeed, and not only for motorcycle. also moped and mofa. There is law that says, pushing the mofa, moped, motorcycle, you must follow the rules of a pedestrian. It also says, where the pedestrian should walk, first on a footway, if that is not there, on cycleway, if that is not there, the

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

Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 09:16 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > Also, it may be OK to carry bicycle in a box and not OK > to push (not road access, but in some train you are not allowed to > enter with bicycle, > bit once bicycle is in a box this is considered as

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

5 Nov 2019, 18:47 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 18:25, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> >> This a well-known (small) problem that from time to time turns up in OSM >> discussions. And then the discussion fizzles out again. >> > > Which is also a well-known problem ... > > I

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

sent from a phone > On 6. Nov 2019, at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Does motor_vehicle=no mean I can push one though there? I did think not ... > at least not on a regular basis indeed, moto_vehicle=no does not prevent you from pushing your motorcycle. Cheers Martin

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

On 06/11/19 09:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 07:23, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: sent from a phone > On 5. Nov 2019, at 18:48, Markus mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I guess that bicycle=no almost always

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

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 07:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 5. Nov 2019, at 18:48, Markus wrote: > > > > I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that *driving* a bicycle > > isn't allowed. So it seems just logical to use a new tag for places > > where pushing

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

Bicycles are prohibited entirely in USA federal Wilderness areas, along with all other machinery. - Joseph E On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:23 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 5. Nov 2019, at 18:48, Markus wrote: > > > > I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that

  1   2   >