Liz wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are >> posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, what's wrong with the >> "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without >> trying to supersede common sense (ie, identifying and obeying traffic >> control devices as they're encountered)? > > Because I find bicycle=destination meaningless
It's not meaningless, it's vague. There's a world of difference. =destination means that, for whatever reason, it's not suitable as a through way, but you may be forced to walk your bike or merge into a narrow street with faster traffic. According to the "bicycle" page on the wiki, the destination tag is meant for "NO THROUGH BICYCLES" situations, but I'm willing to expand that a bit to include ways where bicycles can legally use it as a through road, but doing so is not a good idea except as a last resort. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
