Mike Harris didn't write that - though I did read it! Mike Harris
> -----Original Message----- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson > Sent: 17 December 2009 01:31 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no > > Mike Harris wrote: > > > IMHO it would be more useful if bicycle=no meant 'no cycling' ... I > > think there are quite a few situations where a cyclist > could wheel (or > > carry) the bike but not ride it. Without bicycle=no it would be > > difficult to know that it was 'no cycling' but with 'bicycle=no' + > > 'foot=yes' it would be reasonable to assume a default that > the cyclist > > could wheel / carry the bike. > > Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and > those are posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, > what's wrong with the "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested > for navigation purposes, without trying to supersede common > sense (ie, identifying and obeying traffic control devices as > they're encountered)? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
