A short section of pushing a bike along a footpath will often be preferential to only using a route where a bike can be ridden.
Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/10/2013 13:40 Richard Mann wrote: bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower <socks-openstreetmap....@earth.li> wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route > explicitly signed as e.g. "no bicycles not even pushed" (Oxford > University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago). Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs: http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads "NO CYCLES WHETHER RIDDEN OR NOT") The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860 http://cycle.st/p17861 Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing software etc, that does. s _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
