I didn't oppose because "I" don't need it in the UK, I opposed it
because I couldn't understand the need for it anywhere or how it solved
any problem.
However, in this instance I'm prepared to change my vote to abstain.
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 07:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
If that's the case, then "bicycle:(forward|backward)=no" would also be
broken, which I'm not seeing in the proposal. As Mele can vouch for,
I'm probably OSM's strongest bicycling advocate, and I can't see a
strong use for adding another tag to a key on this one.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Jonathan <bigfatfro...@gmail.com
<mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
You mean the cycle lane is only oneway and so bicycle=no on the
road stops bikes both way?
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 00:15, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 21:25 schrieb Matthijs Melissen
<i...@matthijsmelissen.nl <mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>>:
Cyclists shall be required to use the track if the track
is running along a
carriageway, footpath or track for riders on horseback and
leading into the
same direction
Again a confirmation ("and leading into the same direction")
that bicycle=no on the road doesn't work (like many opposers
stated in the voting)
Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
