On 23/07/2020 17.30, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that
using a mode of transportation that primarily uses feet ("foot
travel"/walking/running/hiking) isn't allowed.
bicycle=no is consistent with this, it doesn't mean that bicycles are
prohibited, it means that a mode of transportation, (bicycle riding) is
prohibited.
horse=no is apparently a little different as you point out. It seems to
refer not just to a mode of transportation, but to the possession of the
animal in general.
I disagree. In both cases, what is prohibited is the horse/bicycle
touching the ground.
Based on that, you could argue that bicycle=no means you can *carry*,
but not *walk* (push) your bicycle. I would be *tentatively* sympathetic
to such an argument... depending on how obnoxious it is for you to be
dragging around a bicycle. For something like a foldable, or if is
dismantled enough to not be a large, ungainly object, then I would lean
toward that being okay (which is where we get into prohibited=bicycle or
whatever spelling).
It is similar to dog=no. dog=no doesn't refer to
whether you can use a dog as a mode of transportation, it means you can't
possess a dog at all on the given way (even if you carry it).
*This* is where things become inconsistent :-). Although, as we've
noted, in some instances you *can* carry your dog.
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
