[talk-au] Default access restrictions

James Andrewartha trs80 at student.uwa.edu.au
Wed Jan 6 14:17:29 GMT 2010


2010/1/6 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> I've created an entry on the default access restrictions wiki page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia
>
> Now we can debate each line:
>
> ===Trunk===
> Default. Ok?

There are some trunk roads in Perth that have motorway-style
restrictions, but they are the exception.

> ===Primary etc===
> Default. Ok?

I'm a little dubious over foot=yes, but that seems to be the way it's
done everywhere else.

> ===Bridleway===
> I would have said we don't have these, except I think I found one on the
> outskirts of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. With the tiny bit of traffic
> they must receive, I can't imagine that pedestrians would be banned, and
> bikes probably wouldn't be either. So, horse=designated, bicycle=yes,
> foot=yes.

The bridleways I know are soft sand, not suiteable for cycling at all.
The Bold Park bridle trail doesn't allow pedestrians:
http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/images/stories/boldpark/docs/BPMapwithtrails.pdf

> ===Cycleway===
> I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose
> "bicycle=designated foot=designated". Horse...no? Paths that allow horses,
> like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough.

+1

> ===Footway==
> Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along
> the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths,
> like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose
> "foot=designated bicycle=yes".

Regular footpaths far outnumber any other type of footpath though -
most urban roads will have one, if not two footpaths alongside. And
with the Nearmap imagery it's quite feasible to map them. This ties
into foot=yes for regular roads - if we're mapping footpaths, arguably
roads should be foot=no.

James Andrewartha




More information about the Talk-au mailing list