<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky! I've seen examples
in Swindon and Telford as well, in both cases for very good
reasons where the road equivalent isn't very suitable. At least
if the council put up a sign pointing bikes that way it should be
clear, but such signs are all too often vague, misleading, or
contradictory<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAELijW8AFYQN50sX4Nqt9EqCONyH0zz3Xvngs2E6-bPKSf_7LQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner,
to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the
by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham
which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been
incorporated into major cycle routes involving path
resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big
Track).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21,
Steven Hirschorn <<a
href="mailto:steven.hirschorn@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">steven.hirschorn@gmail.com</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">There's
no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old<br>
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.<br>
<br>
I found a page on the council website encouraging cycling in
their parks:<br>
<a
href="https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9</a><br>
<br>
Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in
designated places:<br>
<a
href="https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws</a><br>
<br>
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Jon Pennycook <<a
href="mailto:jon.pennycook@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jon.pennycook@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hello Steven.<br>
><br>
> Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a
footway in the default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway
in OpenCycleMap. Whether you go with cycleway, footway, or
path, don't forget to set a value for segregated (and ideally
include width, surface, and lit tags as these are useful for
routers!)<br>
><br>
> As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access,
given that bylaws forbid it, I'll leave to other people to
decide. Is there a sign explaining the bylaws or forbidding
cycling?<br>
><br>
> Jon<br>
><br>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <<a
href="mailto:steven.hirschorn@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">steven.hirschorn@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I
believe they<br>
>> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling.
However, I've not heard<br>
>> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are
trying to<br>
>> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be
enforced unless combined<br>
>> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar
from someone who<br>
>> would know).<br>
>><br>
>> One park previously had all its paths marked as
highway=cycleway and<br>
>> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.
highway=cycleway seems to<br>
>> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths.
highway=footway<br>
>> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway
with bicycle=yes or<br>
>> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of
de jure and de<br>
>> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on
rendering (I know not<br>
>> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing
engine.<br>
>><br>
>> What would work best to capture this situation?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> Steven<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>