In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.
Polyglot On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 17:35 Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you > >> are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped > >> or...). Do you know of any examples? > > > > I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other > > than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of > > footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally > > unsuitable. > > > > A few of examples from my local big town > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048 > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507 > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194 > > All of those examples appear to allow regular pedestrians (foot=yes), > which is common. I am asking if there are any places where walking is > allowed *only* if you are pushing a bicycle, i.e. "no bicycle, no > access". IOW, where your joke about dogs isn't a joke. > > (OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization — > although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a > military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant > to *identify friend or foe*, or if they're more just "transponders".) > > On 23/07/2020 09.59, bkil wrote: > > For example, bicycle=dismount should be understood that bicycle > > access is only allowed if a rider dismounts. However, if we had to > > write bicycle=dismount + foot=no, then the meaning basically becomes: > > neither riding your bicycle nor walking is allowed here, which is > > quite the opposite compared to what bicycle=dismount would mean if it > > were placed alone on the POI. Hence the correct way to tag this > > should be bicycle=no + foot=no. > > Right, that's what I was suggesting, because the only plausible > interpretation I can come up with for foot=no + bicycle=dismount is that > you may traverse the way [on foot] iff you are pushing a bicycle. The > question was, does that ever actually happen? I'm not *quite* willing to > rule it out... > > -- > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
