On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote:
My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current bicycle=no ways. Yes, I think that would be workable. Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no should mean =no! But I fear we're in the minority, and that the sloppy tagging of the past has a formidable inertia. I disagree, see my other answer relating to agriculture. Also, it contradicts the principle of least surprise that most countries do not have such restrictions, hence regardless of how you would like to redefine `bicycle=no`, half of the world would still keep tagging it incorrectly.
As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way. I'm not asking for a stricter redefinition of bicycle=no because I suspect it's simply not feasible at this point, especially given the continued popular support for the interpretation that allows dismounted travel. But it's clear why there's confusion here. Precisely because of this inconsistency in the meaning of *=no, the strictest documented bicycle tag value does not correctly describe the strictest real-world cases (which are not rare.) And I guarantee that many mappers do not know that they're implicitly permitting dismounted bicycle travel when they tag bicycle=no, especially if they're aware of the bicycle=dismount tag. At the same time, I fear that defining a new value, stricter than =no (eg =prohibited, =banned, etc) would probably cause more problems than it would solve, given the number of data consumers that would need to adapt to this change. This is why I reluctantly suggested adding a second tag (dismounted_bicycle=no) alongside bicycle=no, even though it feels like an ugly hack. Other possibilities might be prohibited=bicycle, bicycle:prohibited=yes. foot:pushing_bicycle=no, foot:conditional=no @ (pushing_bicycle)... all pretty hard to love. Maybe I'm wrong and a stricter-than-no value could be adopted without too much pain? There is already limited use of bicycle=prohibited. (OSRM currently appears to ignore it, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244518832 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=45.61895%2C13.86592%3B45.61999%2C13.86804 .) Jason
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging