On 23/07/2020 12.09, bkil wrote:
Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment value, but then I accept your challenge.
I wasn't asking for entertainment. I was asking because, while *logically* it seems like such a combination doesn't make sense, the refrain around here seems to be "don't assume".
Actually I could indeed think of a place where you are only allowed to be present in case you are pushing a bicycle. Imagine a bicycle adventure park that only contains bicycle roads. Let's say that the terms of service declares that visitors must not leave their bikes unattended (i.e., no parking). Now let's pretend that there's a small bridge in the middle of the park that includes a small stretch of stairs that has bicycle pushing rails (or substitute with just a single wooden bridge in a bad shape that has a bunch of long cracks that could easily lock your wheels if you ride over it - true story, we had a bridge just like that). A sign would be posted here that disallows bicycle riders from accessing it, but pushing through would be possible. How could you be walking on to this bridge if you were not in possession of a bicycle in the first place?
Interesting. I suppose the question becomes, if there were such a way, would you tag it foot=no + bicycle=dismount?
-- Matthew _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
