27

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.

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?