On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:00 AM, James Livingston <doc...@mac.com> wrote: >> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using >> bicycle=no for situations where riding is not allowed, and >> access=private+foot=permissive for situations where bicycles aren't allowed. > > That sounds reasonable to me. If everyone like that, is it worth putting on > the 'access' wiki page as an example for how to tag something not completely > obvious?
Documenting decisions like this is definitely the right thing to do, but I'm not sure "access=private, foot=permissive" screams "bikes are not allowed, even when pushed" to me. The situation where bikes aren't allowed *at all* is pretty rare. Even in the Grand Canyon, US, you can carry a bike, disassembled. But there aren't very succinct ways of saying "not even if you push it". Maybe a tag like "bicycle=prohibited"? "bicycle=no_entry"? > Several of the "cyclists dismount" signs over here in Australia are at > crossings, where you are supposed to dismount anyway, so those ones are > presumably a "no really, we mean it" reminder as you could in theory be > booked for no doing it anyway. For the ones where you could otherwise ride > you bike, I don't know if they have any legal force (not being a cyclist > myself). If it's illegal to ride across any crossing, it doesn't seem worth tagging the fact, regardless of signage. (Although this comes back to the discussion about local laws...) Tags like "bicycle=dismount" would be more useful to cover something like an unrideable section of a rail trail or something. (Yes, they exist). Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
