On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: >> >> Re: Kansas >> >> "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of >> the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the >> driver of a vehicle ..." > > So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the instant > you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a roadway :) > > Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm sure > there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are inventoried > if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a bike router is > probably better-off ignoring access=destination in general, unless the user > specifies that he wants to follow the letter of the law.
The "no thru traffic" sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no "letter of the law", as the law generally does not mention such signs. In any case, if access=destination only applies to motor vehicles, it should be motor_vehicle=destination. If it only applies to vehicles, it should be vehicle=destination. Routers may want to cheat and assume access=destination means [motor_]vehicle=destination, but if you're going to tag it, you should tag it correctly. As for whether "no thru traffic" is even supposed to be meant to apply to bicycles, I don't know. Personally I'd certainly fight any ticket I received for failure to obey such a sign. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
