I agree.
In the UK there is a difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling". Although in general you may be correct that a dismounted cyclist is effectively a pedestrian, there are also footways (or whatever you want to call them) signed as "no cycles", which means that in these cases a dismounted cyclist is not equivalent to a pedestrian. If foot=yes (explicit or implied) implies bicycle=dismount which corresponds to "no cycling", I would suggest that bicycle=no would then mean "no cycles" i.e. not even if dismounted. But watch out for talking about "what is legally allowed" as it varies widely by country! Colin On 2014-01-19 11:27, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 19.01.2014 09:19, schrieb Volker Schmidt: > >> I frequently need to map short pieces of a bicycle routes where cyclists >> have to dismount and walk their bicyle on a one-road in the "wrong" >> direction. I need something like a one-directinal bicycle dismount. Any >> suggestions? > > Yes: Nothing. > > A cyclist who dismount is legally a pedestrian. > A pedestrian is legally allowed to use a one-way-road in the opposite > direction. > > Any bicycle router can use a foot=yes (even implied) just as well as a > cyclist=dismount - for routing and/or for advising. > > Georg > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: ------ [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
