The point is surely that we make it possible for a (cycle) router to distinguish between candidate routes and routes which should not be considered. Should a router prefer a direct route through a mall which is a footway (instructing the user to dismount for this bit) or a cycleway which goes round the outside? How can the router see the difference between this footway and a short cut-through in open countryside, which humans might consider to be a perfectly legitimate and legal option? Or a normal footpath which goes through a building (where you would be allowed to cycle)? Let's put ourselves in the router's place for a moment. OSM's role is to supply the data - the consumer (router in this case) has to do the interpretation. The tagging is one of the ways that we have to communicate. Bottom line - we need a distinction between the vehicle (cycle) and the activity (cycling). A similar discussion has also been going on recently about PSVs - buses, taxis etc. The vehicle may be subject to different restrictions according to the activity - a bus (vehicle) being used for something other than a local scheduled service (activity) might not be allowed to use a bus lane for example.
By the way, w.r.t. the explosives business, "no explosives" would not be right either, as the sign only applies to vehicles (which includes cycles) and does not prohibit you from carrying them on foot. You just dump the bike and put the Semtex in your rucksack. Then you are no longer a vehicle. Colin On 2014-01-19 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014/1/19 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > >> 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? > > yes, it is also my guess that shopping centres might forbid bringing your > bike even if pushed. And they will also forbid a lot of other stuff, like > dogs, horses, people not dressed according to their liking, people that they > don't like (or that their private security thinks that the operator doesn't > like, especially if they look as if they won't buy anything), they also don't > like people voicing political opinions or distributing flyers. Also > ballplaying will probably be forbidden. Are we going to add all those tags? > IMHO those are indoor spaces (shop=mall / building=*) and it is normal that > you can't bring your vehicle inside, you also can't bring it inside the > theatre or the butcher's and probably not even into the zoo. > >> 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'd tag this a "no explosives" rather than "no bike with explosives" > 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
