[talk-au] Default access restrictions

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM, James Andrewartha
<trs80 at student.uwa.edu.au>wrote:

>
> > ===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
>

I don't know, I've only seen one. It was sandy, but still rideable. I didn't
think it was banned to bikes. Then again, looking at the aerial photos, I
saw some of those horizontal wooden poles that seem designed to let horses
in but block bikes and motorbikes. So maybe you're right, "horse=designated
bicycle=no" - by default.

I think the trail I saw is described here:
http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/masterplans/article.asp?Item=12652
(in minimal detail)

Anyway there are relatively few bridleways in Australia, and we're probably
only going to use the tag for these well-defined trails, so...yeah I think
you're right.

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

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


> > ===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.
>
>
Yeah: "highway=tertiary foot=yes" doesn't mean "people can walk on this
road", it means "people can follow this road on foot to get somewhere" - ie,
on the footpaths on the side. And, since we're not mapping footpaths (I seem
to recall there was an explicit rule to not map them), it's safe for
"highway=footway" to imply "bicycle=yes". Unless anyone thinks that most
non-footpath footways (ie, ones that don't run along the side of a road,
crossing driveways) are banned to cyclists?

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20100107/dcbf0afa/attachment.html>