Am 19.01.2014 12:06, schrieb Colin Smale:
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.
Yes, I had that in mind, but that was not the question here. ;-)
(You get what you ask. ;-) )
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.
Ouch - I won't mix this here.
bicycle=no is long time used and defined as "traffic", as "use", not as
"object".
So "bicycle=no" means "no cycling" a long time already.
For "no cycles" there should be a new tag.
There was a discussion some time ago.
But watch out for talking about "what is legally allowed" as it varies
widely by country!
Georg
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
