> Am 16/ott/2013 um 00:49 schrieb "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)"
> :
>
> That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean "no
> cycling" or "no bicycles" -- which seems to be the key thing we need
> to agree on first.
IMHO as bicycle is a tag about "cyclists" according to the
(this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have inserted "my"
problem with bicycle=no/dismount)
Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are part
of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths. The legal
requirements is that cyclists dismount
> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>
> This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread use
> of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.
there is really no difference in meaning between bicycle=no (cycling is legally
forbidden) a
Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
(this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have inserted
"my" problem with bicycle=no/dismount)
Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which are
part of dedicated combined foot-cycle paths or even pure cycle paths.
> There are only some singular situations where "pushing bicycles as an
object" is not allowed.
> In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would
carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ...
> none I suppose, but I never was in such situation yet.
>
> Georg
Nothing
On 2013-10-16 at 10:10:50 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Am 16.10.2013 09:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> >(this thread is so long now, that I don't remember if I have
> >inserted "my" problem with bicycle=no/dismount)
> >
> >Here in Italy we have heaps of pedestrian-only crossings, which
> >are pa
2013/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
>> Am 16/ott/2013 um 09:23 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>>
>> This feature of JOSM indicates to me that there is most likely widespread
>> use of bicycle=no on crossings with the meaning of bicycle=dismount.
>
> there is really no difference in meaning between bicy
2013/10/16 Dan S
> and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
> there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
> occur often:
> * cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
> consider bicycle=no)
> * cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which,
2013/10/16 Richard Mann
> Nothing to fear except a long walk back to where you started when you try
> to get out here: http://goo.gl/maps/9ncnD
>
> I guess you could throw the bike over the fence. Or wait until one of
> those cars opens the gate.
>
> (and don't ask me what you do if you are in a
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out
that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a
bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling.
What about the equivalent situation for horses?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/b
2013/10/16 SomeoneElse
> What about the equivalent situation for horses?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29335011
>
> Although the horse may have different views on the matter, I'd say that
> this is very definitely related to horseriding. :)
>
maybe this is different under UK legi
Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We
don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning
pedestrians as well.
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:
Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used
SomeoneElse wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out
>
> > that "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing
> a
> > bike" as this has nothing to do with cycling.
>
> What about the equivalent situation f
Hello,
SomeoneElse wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out that
>> "bicycle" is not the right key to state anything about "pushing a bike" as
>> this has nothing to do with cycling.
>
> What about the equivalent situation fo
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stefan Tiran
wrote:
> Depending on cultural
> differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
> definitely not as means of transportation.
Depends your size and the size of the dog...
Pieren, tagging footways with dog:dismount=yes, just in case.
People in Alaska might disagree with you... I have no idea whether dog
sledges are banned on certain streets, of course.
Jo
2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran
> Hello,
>
> SomeoneElse wrote:
> > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no doubt that these situations occur, I was only pointing out
> th
2013/10/16 Stefan Tiran
> Depending on cultural
> differences dogs could be considered as pet, food or object, but
> definitely not as means of transportation.
>
put "dog riding" in your preferred search engine pic search and you'll get
an awful lot of pictures, including stuff like a dog ridin
Hi,
I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to do
regarding of what line=* is commonly used for :
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line
There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with
public transport.
Thus, and I'm sorry to suggest t
On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote:
I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to
do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for :
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line
There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with
public tr
Ok.
So I will move to line=junction_box et line=marker (like pipeline=valve and
pipeline=marker).
Thank you.
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2013/10/16 Ole Nielsen
> On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote:
>
>> I was wonde
20 matches
Mail list logo
