<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi Adam<div><br></div><div>Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. </div><div><br></div><div>My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?</div><div><br></div><div>In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags highway=footway + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below</div><div>or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?</div><div><br></div><div>Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags for permissions. <br><br><div dir="ltr">regards,<div><br></div><div>Sebastian </div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan <ahoran@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Kim,<div>highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is highway=footway.</div><div>bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing here.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd prefer a normal footpath to be</div><div>highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no</div><div><br></div><div>Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)</div><div>either</div><div>highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)</div><div>or<br></div><div>highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, but it's a mild preference)<br></div><div><br></div><div>This is mostly with a VIC perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>Adam</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <<a href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Hi Andrew and list,<br>
<br>
How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote
process, or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the
wiki any consensus we reach on this list?<br>
<br>
We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags
which duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As
per Andrew's email below).<br>
<br>
We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
various highway= values at
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia</a>
and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:<br>
<br>
highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.<br>
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.<br>
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be
broken up by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on
the footway. In Victoria and NSW: bicycle=no. Is Queensland
bicycle=yes? What about the other states?<br>
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state
relations with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing
engines.<br>
<br>
<div>On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme,
Tony, Thorsten, Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging
bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the record I also
support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where
signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but
Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of
this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the
situation has change recently (happy to be proven if this is
the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should proceed
to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against
the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in
these errors.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging
with this discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here
would you be willing to work through and revert these changes
you've made?</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Talk-au mailing list</span><br><span>Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</span><br><span>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>