On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote: > > What makes them "genuine bike paths", then? > Signage, or non-copyrighted data telling the user that a cyclist can go > down it. > So anything that a cyclists is allowed to travel on (presumably, excluding roads) is a "bike path"? What counts as telling "the user" (?) that a cyclist can go down a path? If the law is silent on the matter (therefore, it is allowed), would I need a court ruling? Is a law clearly saying that bikes are allowed even sufficient? > > Umm, "measured human activity" is a physical observation. > Physical observations of signage, not a couple of blurred images of a > micro-second snapshot. > What if the images weren't blurred? What if I actually saw the people? Not every jurisdiction puts up signs everywhere telling people that they're allowed to do things. A "bikes allowed" sign is redundant here in Florida. Might as well have signs for "teenagers allowed" and "dogs allowed" and "GPS devices allowed".
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
