On 23/07/2020 16.16, Mike Thompson wrote:
Perhaps it is unfortunate that for modes of transportation we picked nouns rather than verbs (e.g. foot vs. walking), but that is what it is by long tradition. A similar thing applies to horse=no. There are roads (some of the US Interstates) where you can not ride your horse, but you can load your horse into a trailer, hook the trailer up to your truck, and drive with your horse on those same roads.
...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no. Besides, those restrictions are generally because slow-moving traffic is a hazard; in a trailer, your horse (camel, elephant, ...) is no longer slow-moving.
For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
I don't think bicycle=no and horse=no should mean something different. If horse=no means "no horses allowed", not "horses allowed as long as no one is riding them" (which I would expect to be the case), then bicycle=no should mean the same thing with "bicycle" substituted for "horse". And in both cases, we're talking about the horse/bicycle being *directly* on the way, not being inside a vehicle.
-- Matthew _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
