On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
> be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that
using a mode of transportation that primarily uses feet ("foot
travel"/walking/running/hiking) isn't allowed.
bicycle=no is consistent with this, it doesn't mean that bicycles are
prohibited, it means that a mode of transportation, (bicycle riding) is
prohibited.
horse=no is apparently a little different as you point out. It seems to
refer not just to a mode of transportation, but to the possession of the
animal in general. It is similar to dog=no. dog=no doesn't refer to
whether you can use a dog as a mode of transportation, it means you can't
possess a dog at all on the given way (even if you carry it).
>
> For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but
> not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
Right, because it is no longer the mode of transportation.
> FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that
> if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
well, "no does mean no", it means "no bicycle riding", it means, no using a
bicycle as a mode of transportation. It doesn't say anything about
possessing a bicycle in general, or using it in another manner (pushing,
carrying)
"dismount" is not the complete solution, because, as the original question
implied, sometimes it is also illegal to carry a bicycle (although I have
never seen that), and as someone else pointed out, sometimes it is illegal
to even possess a bicycle at all, such as in a US Wilderness Area.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
