Animals other than horse?

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-11T15:30:35.110Z

skyper:

Actually the same is true for bicycles and even motor_vehicles which are still allowed to be pushed.

Wouldn’t this be the difference between bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no? Admittedly it’s a little funny to say “dismount” if one hasn’t even mounted the conveyance in the first place, but at least that terminology is familiar to people who keep horses.

Pushing a car is normally something you’d do as a last resort. I don’t think there’s a need to encode an exigency like that as a normal access restriction. That is however my favorite misinterpretation of this sign assembly:

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Speed Limit and Turn Engine Off signs, Bassett Street, San Jose, California.jpg

skyper · 2024-11-11T15:47:41.716Z

Unfortunately no and dismount are more or less equivalence, see Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:horse=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

Yes, pushing a car is quite uncommon but a Fiat 500 can easily be pushed by a single person as long as it does not go uphill and how about small motorcycles or even mopeds and mofas?

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-11T16:58:13.419Z

skyper:

Unfortunately no and dismount are more or less equivalence, see Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:horse=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

The author of these pages explained their reasoning in response to a request for OSRM to route cyclists over bicycle=no as a last resort, similar to how it implicitly tells you to walk your bike on footpaths or against the flow of traffic. I would just point out that context matters: you necessarily have to get off your bike on a route=train, even if bikes are allowed on board, so bicycle=no can only realistically refer to transporting a bike. And when the signs literally say to dismount or not to ride a bike, people are going to tag that differently than when the signs only prohibit bikes ambiguously. They aren’t going to go there and test the waters by walking a bike right in front of a park ranger. Much the same is true of horses or any other conveyance.

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Must Dismount.jpg

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Bicycle riding prohobited.jpg

commons.wikimedia.org

File:NO BICYCLES Sign.jpg

skyper:

Yes, pushing a car is quite uncommon but a Fiat 500 can easily be pushed by a single person as long as it does not go uphill and how about small motorcycles or even mopeds and mofas?

The “Turn Off Engine” sign I posted is intended for bus operators.

Vinzenz_Mai · 2024-11-11T18:30:13.081Z

skyper:

We had some discussion about bicycles been forbidden even to push on a campus but I do not find it atm

Komplettes Fahrradverbot in Ladenpassagen Deutschland (Germany)

Dies ist mir in letzter Zeit 2x begegnet. Eine Ladenpassage durch ein Gebäude verbindet 2 Straßen.Sie ist also für manche Routings der kürzeste Weg. Für Fußgänger ist das zumindest tagsüber auch erlaubt. Für Radfahrer gibt es da aber Schilder “Das Mitführen von Fahrrädern ist in diesem Bereich verboten”. Also auch das Schieben. Eingetragen ist das bis jetzt als highway=footway bicycle=no tunnel=building passage Trotzdem nehmen das die meisten Radrouter als willkommene Abkürzung.bicycle=no w…

dürfte das gewesen sein.

Hufkratzer · 2024-11-11T23:12:10.506Z

Minh_Nguyen:

skyper:

Unfortunately no and dismount are more or less equivalence, see Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:horse=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

The author of these pages explained their reasoning […]

I am the author wiki page Tag:horse=dismount and nowhere did I write that Tag:horse=no and Tag:horse=dismount are equivalent. Tag:horse=no simply says nothing about whether leading a horse is allowed or not and the router has to guess that if necessary; this is clearly some difference to Tag:horse=dismount. The fact that the latter tag is used much less (presumably because in public spaces horses are mostly ridden or driven and not led) does not change this.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-12T00:24:18.381Z

Hufkratzer:

I am the author wiki page Tag:horse=dismount and nowhere did I write that Tag:horse=no and Tag:horse=dismount are equivalent.

Sorry to put words in your mouth; I meant to refer to @Mateusz_Konieczny talking about his authorship of the bicycle=dismount page.

skyper · 2024-11-12T12:44:22.507Z

Oh, diese Diskussion hatte ich völlig vergessen. Ich war auf der Suche nach einer Diskussion über ein Uni- oder Schulgelände, wo Fahrräder komplett verboten sind.
Trotzdem Danke für Deinen Link und Deine Mühen.

skyper · 2024-11-12T13:17:31.406Z

Minh_Nguyen:

skyper:

Unfortunately no and dismount are more or less equivalence, see Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:horse=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

The author of these pages explained their reasoning in response to a request for OSRM to route cyclists over bicycle=no as a last resort, similar to how it implicitly tells you to walk your bike on footpaths or against the flow of traffic. I would just point out that context matters: you necessarily have to get off your bike on a route=train, even if bikes are allowed on board, so bicycle=no can only realistically refer to transporting a bike. And when the signs literally say to dismount or not to ride a bike, people are going to tag that differently than when the signs only prohibit bikes ambiguously. They aren’t going to go there and test the waters by walking a bike right in front of a park ranger. Much the same is true of horses or any other conveyance.

I definitely should have stayed with animals and we should stay with highways and not bring routes and the different use of access tags for other objects than roads into play.

(I would not expect to take my elephant on the train even with horse=yes resp. elephant=yes.)

Hufkratzer:

I am the author wiki page Tag:horse=dismount and nowhere did I write that Tag:horse=no and Tag:horse=dismount are equivalent. Tag:horse=no simply says nothing about whether leading a horse is allowed or not and the router has to guess that if necessary;

Sorry, you are right that dismount adds more information. Though, in Germany horse=* is about riding animals and not just horses.

@Minh_Nguyen: Which value would you use for your images?
@Hufkratzer: Which value would you use for

If I look through the wiki and the data, I find many cases with no which in reality are dismount. This is backup by e.g.:

SomeoneElse:

If I came across a sign saying that $animal was allowed or forbidden on a road I’d probably just tag $animal=yes/no .

Minh_Nguyen:

The “Turn Off Engine” sign I posted is intended for bus operators.

This could get dangerous, especially, with air pressured brakes. I have learned to use a lower gear but definitely not to turn off the engine.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-12T15:48:13.265Z

skyper:

Which value would you use for your images?

Based on what the sign says:

Bikes Must Dismount: bicycle=dismount
Walk Your Bike: bicycle=dismount
Bicycle Riding Prohibited: bicycle=dismount
No Bikes: bicycle=no (even if you can secretly get away with walking your bike)

Maybe I might go back and retag this sidewalk with *=dismount on the basis that the sign only literally bans activities rather than devices. And of course one would take off one’s rollerskates rather than “dismounting” from them. But also, who cares?

commons.wikimedia.org

File:Sidewalk access restrictions at Loveland Station Apartments, Loveland, Ohio.jpg

I don’t know of that many roads or paths that would ever need to clarify “No Horse Riding” as opposed to “No Horses on Foot”. Maybe in a park where a bridle path comes close to a playground? As I pointed out earlier, when “No Animals” appears on a road sign, it really means “No Animals on Foot”. It isn’t the case that Kentucky allows horse trailers on freeways while Ohio does not, or that New York bans the transportation of fluffy cats and dogs as hazardous material.

skyper:

Minh_Nguyen:

The “Turn Off Engine” sign I posted is intended for bus operators.

This could get dangerous, especially, with air pressured brakes. I have learned to use a lower gear but definitely not to turn off the engine.

To reiterate, I only provided this example as a joke. The real purpose of the sign is to tell bus operators not to idle their engines when parking on the side the street during a layover (parking:restriction=no_idling). By coincidence, it appears with a speed limit sign that applies to all moving vehicles, as though it’s an instruction to cut the engine and coast.

Hufkratzer · 2024-11-12T17:56:48.065Z

skyper:

@Hufkratzer: Which value would you use for

I would use horse=no (although in most places horse=dismount would also be correct. But generally I only add access tags for things I see signs for, and the sign itself only says that riding is forbidden).

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-11-12T19:47:20.314Z

Minh_Nguyen:

Bikes Must Dismount: bicycle=dismount

Walk Your Bike: bicycle=dismount

Bicycle Riding Prohibited: bicycle=dismount

No Bikes: bicycle=no (even if you can secretly get away with walking your bike)

for absolutely no bicycles, even pushed ones, I would add also an extra tag

sadly, bicycle=no was used earlier and widely and continues to be used widely and always was used widely for places where it is 100% fine to push bicycle

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-12T20:41:36.159Z

Sure, some of the nuance with bicycles and similar devices is that, even if a sign flatly says “No Bikes”, the purpose of the sign is to prevent pedestrians from getting run over, so walking the bike is good enough. There are lots of bike racks just beyond this sign, so of course you can get off your bike and walk it a few steps past this arcade. But don’t try a similar stunt with your golf cart.

commons.wikimedia.org

File:No Golf Carts, Littlefield Center, Stanford University.jpg

skyper · 2024-11-12T22:22:54.447Z

Minh_Nguyen:

Based on what the sign says:

Bikes Must Dismount: bicycle=dismount

Walk Your Bike: bicycle=dismount

Bicycle Riding Prohibited: bicycle=dismount

No Bikes: bicycle=no (even if you can secretly get away with walking your bike)

So most of the example pictures at Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki are wrong?

Hufkratzer:

I would use horse=no (although in most places horse=dismount would also be correct. But generally I only add access tags for things I see signs for, and the sign itself only says that riding is forbidden).

Exactly, in most countries the sign says that riding animals is forbidden which would be horse=dismount as long as access on feet is allowed. Why would you still tag it as horse=no?

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-12T22:46:25.867Z

skyper:

Minh_Nguyen:

Based on what the sign says:

Bikes Must Dismount: bicycle=dismount

Walk Your Bike: bicycle=dismount

Bicycle Riding Prohibited: bicycle=dismount

No Bikes: bicycle=no (even if you can secretly get away with walking your bike)

So most of the example pictures at Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki are wrong?

I don’t see how my list contradicts the examples. To reiterate, context matters. In case of doubt, you may have no choice but to take the sign at face value, but if you have other context clues, dismount or even permit may be more appropriate. Likewise, mappers in some countries may have determined that when the sign depicts a person mounted on a horse, that horse symbolizes any four-legged animal (because no shape could possibly depict a generic animal without resembling a particular species), or that when the sign includes the text “No Animals”, riding is implied (because a ban on animal transport would be worded differently). The wiki can document any implications that are systematic and obvious to locals but unintuitive to outsiders.

Frankly, the bicycle=no page currently reads like a position piece in a bitter disagreement. From my perspective here in the U.S., this is incredibly pedantic, because bicycles and horses are not very strictly regulated. They aren’t even considered vehicles: bikes are often classified as “devices” that follow the rules of the road just like electric scooters and pedestrians do, while the law is often entirely silent on what horseback riders are supposed to do, because there aren’t very many of them. I brought up public transportation routes earlier because it’s the one situation in which the transport of bikes is heavily regulated. For better or worse, routers such as OSRM do route cyclists over railway=* ways.

Mateusz_Konieczny:

for absolutely no bicycles, even pushed ones, I would add also an extra tag

If I ever encounter a case where this actually matters and isn’t extremely obvious, I suppose I could add not:bicycle=dismount for emphasis?

Hufkratzer · 2024-11-13T01:51:28.248Z

skyper:

So most of the example pictures at Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki are wrong?

I can’t see why they should be wrong.

skyper:

Hufkratzer:

I would use horse=no [for ]

Exactly, in most countries the sign says that riding animals is forbidden which would be horse=dismount as long as access on feet is allowed. Why would you still tag it as horse=no?

How do I know that I am really allowed to lead a horse there? The sign (title “Verbot für Reiter” = “ban for horse riders”) does not say this, it only forbids riding (AFAIK).

DE:Verkehrszeichen in Deutschland - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Verkehrszeichen Tool - OpenStreetMap recommend horse=no for (and bicycle=no for ) and almost everyone seems to do it this way, otherwise we would have many more horse=dismount tags in the database. I use horse=dismount only if there is a sign similar to e.g. File:Reiter absitzen, Pferde führen.jpg - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Minh_Nguyen:

From my perspective here in the U.S., […] bicycles and horses are not very strictly regulated. They aren’t even considered vehicles

Interesting. This contradicts support vehicle=* tag · Issue #378 · openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema · GitHub

skyper · 2024-11-13T02:16:33.610Z

Hufkratzer:

skyper:

So most of the example pictures at Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki are wrong?

I can’t see why they should be wrong.

Minh_Nguyen:

I don’t see how my list contradicts the examples.

both are definitely bicycle=dismount

all three are probably bicycle=dismount as long as access on feet is not prohibited.

Hufkratzer:

DE:Verkehrszeichen in Deutschland - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Verkehrszeichen Tool - OpenStreetMap recommend horse=no for (and bicycle=no for ) and almost everyone seems to do it this way, otherwise we would have many more horse=dismount tags in the database.

Exactly, that is why I wrote above that you cannot say that pushing bicycles and leading an animal is prohibited if a highway is tagged with bicycle=no resp. horse=no.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-11-13T02:26:05.374Z

Hufkratzer:

Minh_Nguyen:

From my perspective here in the U.S., […] bicycles and horses are not very strictly regulated. They aren’t even considered vehicles

Interesting. This contradicts support vehicle=* tag · Issue #378 · openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema · GitHub

It varies by state, but this is getting into semantics that only the courts can really decide on, and only if there’s a really good reason to.

In North Carolina, horses are considered vehicles for most purposes. But regarding intoxicated driving, horses are non-vehicles while bicycles and lawnmowers are vehicles.

California regulates horseback riders by analogy to vehicles, but laws distinguish between vehicle drivers and horseback riders:

Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle […], except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

The driver of any vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any horseback rider who is crossing the highway at any designated equestrian crossing which is marked by signs […].

The upshot is that vehicle=* doesn’t clearly align with U.S. law, certainly not well enough to associate that term with a specific sign, as in Vienna Convention countries. In that GitHub discussion, others made the point that it might not be uniform in Europe either.

More relevant to this thread, Oregon lumps a variety of species in with horses, in case anyone decides to be clever and ride a hog down the highway:

When riding or leading a horse or other livestock on the highway, a person must keep a lookout for vehicles and use caution to keep the animal under control. […] This section is only applicable if the livestock is an animal of the species of horses, mules, donkeys, cattle, swine, sheep or goats.

Maybe someone should compile a table of which jurisdictions treat which species like horses. Please include a row about zebras so we can finally get some closure about zebra crossings.

skyper:

all three are probably bicycle=dismount as long as access on feet is not prohibited.

I can’t speak to the first two signs, since I’m not very familiar with Japan or Russia. But the third sign is from the U.S. The official name of sign R5-6 is “No Bicycles”. California sometimes pairs it with an educational plaque to reinforce the message:

commons.wikimedia.org

File:MUTCD-CA PREP-R5-6.svg

Even so, as long as pedestrians are allowed, the legality or practicality of walking a bike in the presence of this sign really depends on the situation. There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule in reality.

Jarek · 2024-11-13T03:12:48.829Z

I was about to unsubscribe from this thread since it’s starting to go in circles, but the mention of swine riding has me riveted to my seat again!

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-11-13T18:40:15.640Z

skyper:

all three are probably bicycle=dismount as long as access on feet is not prohibited.

which is more commonly tagged bicycle=no

Msiipola · 2024-11-14T07:36:26.556Z

This thread has now taken a completely wrong turn. I was not asking about bicycles which many of the last comments are about.

I suggest the admin close this thread or/and move all bicycle comments to a new thread.