We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept
of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad
that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with
your bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow
bicycles to even be present on some ways.
So, we need to adjust the values in the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect this.
Looking at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
there are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we
address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are
being ridden or not.
However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount. The
dismount road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can
no longer ride your bicycle along this way. It is a modification of the
ACCESS rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign,
just like we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of
traffic or modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for "Buses only",
we modify the ACCESS tag.
So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the
bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.
Here's a clue : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb "Frank Little" <frank...@xs4all.nl>:
I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed (they
just have to be pushed).
at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about
cyclists.
cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
