On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:18, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com> wrote: > > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted > bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent > with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a > motor_vehicle=no way, or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way. > bicycle=no is a strict "no", it is just that it means "no bicycling" or > "no bicycle riding." > > 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. > And now I have the perverse desire to suggest that if bicycle=no prevent (bi)cycling we should use bicycling=no to prohibit the bicycle itself. But that would be as terrible as I am currently finding it funny. I suggest that if what is prohibited is pushing the bicycle, then we make > an explicit tag for that bicycle_pushing=no. The same with regards to > carrying the bicycle. If possession is prohibited all together, then > bicycle_possession=no. > > This sounds wordy but reasonable. Keep the mode prohibition on a separate tag to the item prohibition. Yes it is another tag for routers to deal with, but it doesn't break the one they already look at.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
