Mike Harris wrote: > IMHO it would be more useful if bicycle=no meant 'no cycling' ... I think > there are quite a few situations where a cyclist could wheel (or carry) the > bike but not ride it. Without bicycle=no it would be difficult to know that > it was 'no cycling' but with 'bicycle=no' + 'foot=yes' it would be > reasonable to assume a default that the cyclist could wheel / carry the > bike.
Cyclists aren't allowed on most forest service trails, and those are posted horse=no, bicycle=no, foot=yes. Really, what's wrong with the "bicycle=destination" idea I suggested for navigation purposes, without trying to supersede common sense (ie, identifying and obeying traffic control devices as they're encountered)? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
