[talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
Ewen Hill
ewen.hill at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 06:08:49 UTC 2019
Herbert,
Having a look at your selection clauses below, the node and relation are
probably not required. You may also want to look at
way["highway"="cycleway"] and way["bicycle"="designated"] (regardless of
highway type)
I have also used styling so you can quickly see what the issues (real or
otherwise) you had with the first query. You can use
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQv and work from there.
If you identify one or two particular ways and explain why you think they
are incorrect we can have a look at those individually.
Regards
Ewen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:09, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging
> Guidelines and ACT law. You can visualise these for yourself. The script
> should turn up thousands of hits but there are almost none.
> Try this overpass turbo script.
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQp
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi <
> Herbert.Remi at protonmail.com>:
>
> # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
> I hope you can help.
> (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully
> formated. I recommend Typora.)
> Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines
>
> ## The Issue
> The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in
> cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so
> that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs.
>
> The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths
> you are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The
> cause is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the
> standard rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers
> have tried to solve the problem in the last decade.
>
> The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other
> mappers work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path
> tagging does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise.
> Where the congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth
> Park on Lake Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many
> times each year. Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and
> bike path preset, even though neither applies in the ACT according to the
> ATG. ☹
>
> ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each
> environment
> | ID preset | Correct in the
> ACT | tagging |
> ID editor line style | Mapnik line style |
> | --------------------------------------------------- |
> ------------------------- |
> ------------------------------------------------------------ |
> -------------------- | ----------------- |
> | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default
> path type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated
> segregated=no | grey/brown dotted | blue dotted |
> | cycle path |
> No |
> highway=cycleway | blue
> dotted | blue dotted |
> | cycle and foot path | No but
> close | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated
> foot=designated | blue dotted | blue dotted |
> | foot path |
> No |
> highway=footway | grey
> dotted | red dotted |
> | cycle ONLY – no preset | Yes
> (rare) | highway=path bicycle=designated
> foot=no | grey/brown dotted | blue dotted |
> | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes
> (rare) | highway=path bicycle=no
> foot=designated | grey/brown dotted | red dotted
> |
>
> Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the
> bottom of this text.
>
> QUESTION
> **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for
> the ACT?**
>
> ## Most commonly used keys
> These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway,
> segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found
> below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is
> signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key
> footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a
> way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the
> inconsistency.
>
> Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and
> segregated can be found in the ACT.
> * segregated=no/yes
> * highway=path/footway/cycleway
> * foot=designated/yes/blank/no
> * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no
> * footway=sidewalk OR missing
>
> ## The ATG says
> Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the
> “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG.
> “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path.
> **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from
> using that path.**”
> Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT.
>
> What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls
> the “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”,
> and the properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian
> Separated Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total
> length of paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km.
>
> ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT
> ### Type A
> Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in
> 2012.
> The ATG says the tags should be:
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> ### Type B
> Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any
> “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road.
> There were more than 2000km of these "footpaths" in the ACT in 2012.
> Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> Type A and type B paths cannot be distinguished from each other with these
> tags alone. In real life the path markings and signage should help you
> distinguish the two. Generally, path markings and signage are not in OSM.
>
> ## Concluding remarks to paths types in the ACT
> There are effective three paths types in the ACT. The ATG recommend Type A
> and Type B paths are tagged the same way and are 99% or paved, ridable
> paths in the ACT. I will simply refer to them as the DEFAULT type.
>
> Here is a simple way of changing the default, to the bicycle-only or
> pedestrian-only path type. Only one tag needs to be changed for
> corrections. It does not require you to use a preset.
>
> | key | DEFAULT | Pedestrians ONLY | Cyclists ONLY |
> | ---------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- |
> | highway | path | path | path |
> | foot | **designated** | **designated** | no |
> | bicycle | **designated** | no | **designated** |
> | segregated | no | | |
>
> I welcome your comment. 😊
> Keywords: Australia, ACT, highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated, ID
> editor, The Issue, Mapnik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
--
Warm Regards
Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20191004/b938d11c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list