On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Mike Harris <mik...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> can significantly churn up a soft surface. Whereas wheeling (or carrying) a > bike is unlikely to significantly inconvenience pedestrians nor to do any > harm to the path. > Yeah, my cynicism thinks the main reason bikes can't even be wheeled in "wilderness areas" of the US is to prevent people riding them then suddenly hopping off the instant they see a ranger. I don't think there's any drama in "bicycle=no" and "horse=no" having different semantics. I don't think we suddenly want to revise "bicycle=no" to mean their presence is banned, and "bicycle_riding=no" to mean what "bicycle=no" currently means. Though I still have trouble deciding for a lot of paths around here if it's really "bicycle=yes" (implying some sort of deliberate intention that bikes are allowed and a suitability for them) or "bicycle=no" implying a strict prohibition. Whereas the reality is probably more like "bicycle=whatever" or "bicycle=if_you_really_want" or "bicycle=just_dont_hit_anyone". 2. Perhaps horse=no should mean that you cannot ride or lead a horse - but > you can carry it (like a bike)? (;>) > > > Yeah, just take the legs off first, easier to carry that way... Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
