On 07.10.2013 23:06, Ole Nielsen wrote: > On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> dieterdreist wrote: >>> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. >>> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not >>> riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. >> >> That may not be the case in the UK. >> >> The law allows walkers and their "usual accompaniments" along public >> footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a "usual >> accompaniment", so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is >> unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) >> thinks it >> is, many local councils disagree. >> >> That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as >> bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where >> cycling is tolerated. > > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no > and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with > no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. > Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.
Please use a different tag for this or is it the law in the Netherlands that you are not allowed to push a bicycle on sidewalks/footpathes ? > In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already > mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side > intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps > as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact. You can use ramp or ramp:bicycle and bicycle=yes/designated on the steps. Also step_count (along with incline) is nice as you might even carry your bike for some steps cu fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
