<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In Lambeth.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The bylaws still prohibit cycling. However, the signs at the entrances to the park say ‘Please cycle responsibly and give way to pedestrians’ and the council encourage cycling in the borough </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Some of the paths were previously tagged as "cycle route” on the basis of some very old ‘London Cycle Network’ maps for a route that was never actually implemented. Later maps had ambiguity about status - the outer path was shown as a different line to the others but with no reference in the key! </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I was going through removing all ‘route’ tagging (as I dont’ believe it has that formal status or enough grounds to exist in any real form - no signage, markings etc) and updating ALL park paths (except those few where cycling is specifically prohibited) as</div><div class="">- highway=footway</div><div class="">- bicycle=permissive </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As that represents the most accurate legal status AND is correctly repressed as cycle able in the most common cycle map layer - dotted blue line rather than red for the one path I’ve so far missed (the mess on southwest corner are simply lines mowed in longer grass and probably shouldn’t be shown) </div><div class="">And that ‘permissive status’ means it is routable but not shown as a *route* (blue shading) </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:54, Chris Hodges <<a href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk" class="">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">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 class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAELijW8AFYQN50sX4Nqt9EqCONyH0zz3Xvngs2E6-bPKSf_7LQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Jerry<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<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" class="">steven.hirschorn@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</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 class="">
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.<br class=""></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></div></body></html>