Well, certainly I have seen them applied to large "permissive" areas like shopping centres. If we don't use bicycle=no for this, how about bicycle=prohibited?
The standard sign for "no vehicles" (red ring on white background) does not apply to bicycles being pushed by hand, but as a bicycle is technically a vehicle whether it is being ridden or not, there are some esoteric edge cases in the "no vehicles" category, like "no vehicles carrying explosives". If your bike carrier is full of Semtex, dismounting is IMHO not enough to allow you to pass the sign. I could also mention that it is not always clear what the status is of unicycles, tricycles etc. The UK legislation seems to vary between the use of the word "bicycle" and "pedal cycle" (which covers them all). I found this article which illustrates some of the complexities: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/jul/28/cycling-pavement-offence Colin On 2014-01-19 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014/1/19 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > >> there are also footways (or whatever you want to call them) signed as "no >> cycles", which means that in these cases a dismounted cyclist is not >> equivalent to a pedestrian. >> >> If foot=yes (explicit or implied) implies bicycle=dismount which corresponds >> to "no cycling", I would suggest that bicycle=no would then mean "no cycles" >> i.e. not even if dismounted. > > are these public ways? Is this backed by british legislation? Of course on a > private way you can invent all kind of arbitrary rules, like no women with > red hats, but on a public way? > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: ------ [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
