Jmapb wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why > data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, > should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking > bicycles. This is exactly why we have a bicycle=dismount tag.
Because mapping is imperfect. I don't see any theoretical reason why data consumers should ever interpret highway=residential in a developed country as anything other than a paved road, but hey, you try bike routing across the US with that assumption and see where it gets you. (Probably: dehydrated and dead in a ditch in New Mexico.) People often tag bicycle=no when the reality is =dismount. People also tag bicycle=no when the rules say =no but in real life =dismount is tolerated. I'm not going to send someone on a 3-mile detour when they could push their bike for 30m instead, even though a never-enforced sign says thou shalt not. Richard cycle.travel -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
