/OFF-topic > 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. >
I think the last few messages are pointing us in the right direction, but let me share some entertaining insights to answer your question. Under our jurisdiction, a person pushing a bicycle or a moped (mofa) are specifically mentioned at various key points in the law. https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=97500001.KPM The law legally regards you as a pedestrian when you (Appendix 1, II/a): * push a bicycle, * push a moped, * ride a (slow enough) wheelchair, * push a wheelbarrow, * push a stroller. The following road users are regarded as drivers (Appendix 1, III/a): * person driving a vehicle (except person pushing bicycle or moped), * person riding/driving/leading an animal. Pushing a cart seems to be a mixed bag: * you don't need to hold a driver's license, * you are not considered a pedestrian, hence can not use the sidewalk and must abstain from alcohol consumption. Pushing any other vehicle (e.g., motorcycle, automobile) is considered dangerous and not recommended, except for moving them to safety until it can be towed. The pusher in this case is legally considered a driver, the act itself is legally considered driving the given vehicle and hence must hold a valid license and must also abstain from alcohol. So to sum it up, when you are pushing your car, the same OSM car access restrictions apply to you as if you were sitting inside and using the engine. When you are leading your horse, the same horse restrictions apply to you as if you were riding it (i.e., you should not lead a horse on public roads when you are drunk because you may not be cautious enough to protect the animal from causing an accident). On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:36 PM Jmapb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote: >> >> My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar >> would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current >> bicycle=no ways. >> > > Yes, I think that would be workable. > >> >> Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I >> fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has >> a formidable inertia. >> > > I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture. > > Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise that most countries do > not have such restrictions, hence regardless of how you would like to > redefine `bicycle=no`, half of the world would still keep tagging it > incorrectly. > > 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. > > I'm not asking for a stricter redefinition of bicycle=no because I suspect > it's simply not feasible at this point, especially given the continued > popular support for the interpretation that allows dismounted travel. But > it's clear why there's confusion here. Precisely because of this > inconsistency in the meaning of *=no, the strictest documented bicycle tag > value does not correctly describe the strictest real-world cases (which are > not rare.) And I guarantee that many mappers do not know that they're > implicitly permitting dismounted bicycle travel when they tag bicycle=no, > especially if they're aware of the bicycle=dismount tag. > > At the same time, I fear that defining a new value, stricter than =no (eg > =prohibited, =banned, etc) would probably cause more problems than it would > solve, given the number of data consumers that would need to adapt to this > change. This is why I reluctantly suggested adding a second tag > (dismounted_bicycle=no) alongside bicycle=no, even though it feels like an > ugly hack. Other possibilities might be prohibited=bicycle, > bicycle:prohibited=yes. foot:pushing_bicycle=no, foot:conditional=no @ > (pushing_bicycle)... all pretty hard to love. > > Maybe I'm wrong and a stricter-than-no value could be adopted without too > much pain? There is already limited use of bicycle=prohibited. (OSRM > currently appears to ignore it, see > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832 and > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804 > .) > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
