sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, 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. > > 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.) > it is not our fault that bicycles are treated differently by the law than automobiles or horses. ;) the tag “bicycle” is not about bicycles as an object, but about the legal possibility / right to ride a bicycle. Typically, people pushing a bike are legally pedestrians. That’s why bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no are synonymous, and why neither of them is suitable to describe whether you can bring a bike as an object, without riding it. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
