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 render, it is obsoleting a straight forward and explicit tag value for a broken renderer.
Discussion devolves into “if I disassemble by bicycle and put into wheeled luggage is it okay now?”. Why not treat “no” as no? If I can push the bicycle through then we already have “dismount”. Is there some other way of getting a bicycle through? If so, then come up with a new value for that (“disassembled”?). In the meantime, file bug reports against any router that routes a bicycle over a “no”. At least where I am, “no really means no” and if you are caught with a bicycle at all then you are subject to a fine. Thousands of kilometers of paths are so marked and it really wouldn’t be nice to redefine an existing value. Cheers! Tod > On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:34 AM, Allroads <allroadswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > https://images.mapillary.com/yQWkL-XX5eRN5A2j0JkKIA/thumb-2048.jpg > <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, owned or in control, all over the > Netherlands, you see these type of signs, arranged in the same way, the > layout. > Mostly all of these roads/tracks path are permissive > > 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 verboden toegang Artikel 461 W.v.S. > Others prohibited access, article 461 Code criminal law. > The word “Overigens” means: all the other which is not mentioned above on > the sign > Not pushing a bicycle on a unpaved cyclway, path, tracks. So others then > “wegen” roads. > > A active Openmapstreet member got a ticket for pushing his bike on a not > allowed “wegen” by a certified ranger (BOA) Community service officer. > > This sign with “Overigens” of the private organisation Natuurmonumenten, > you find them all over the Netherlands, with the same layout. > > > > ‘' > 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. :) > > ‘' > > Text on sign: “Overigens” and “- met fietsen” "bicycle vehicle itself is > prohibited” > > I need a value .*=explicit_no for “the vehicle” or some other value that > means the same. “the bicycle is not allowed” > > This is for all kind of transportation and vehicles. Pushing carry/not > allowed. > > > > > > > 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? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
