On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and > bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for > various countries around 2015. [14] > > [14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
That article says "Default is a proposal (not yet fully drafted, no RFC, no voting yet) for a possible, upcoming default value system. This proposal may set default access restrictions by area (country, state...) if it becomes a generally accepted practice." I would not consider it to represent consensus. In the United States, if a way is tagged foot=yes + bicycle=no, it is almost always correct to assume that pushing or carrying a bicycle while walking is permitted. The exceptions are US Wilderness areas, where all motorized and mechanical devices are prohibited, and sometimes indoors in buildings such as malls. On streets, roads and footways, it is legal to push a bicycle if you are allowed to walk. > If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when foot/access=destination), I would expect more requests to correct this in applications Most people who ride bikes will want to avoided any places where dismounting is required. It is usually faster to take a different route. Only rarely will it be worthwhile to use a way with bicycle=dismount – Joseph Eisenberg
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
