[talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
way and be proven wrong.

- The footpath which runs along side the road which is not explicitly
signposted for bicycles should be highway=footway + footway=sidewalk, even
in states where you can ride on the footpath, as it's primarily a
pedestrian facility.
- While I'm neutral about the highway tag for shared foot/cycle paths, a
lot of the times these are used and generally behave more like a dedicated
cycleway than a generic path. I'm all for further discussion about this, I
know it's been extensively discussed in the past, but regardless I think a
major change to the tagging guidelines should warrant a discussion to
change.
- However I do agree with the change which added segregated=no to
"Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)".
- Reinstate pedestrian cut through.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:01, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
> talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging
>> Guidelines
>>
>
> Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Turns out that a "helpful" wiki
> user radically changed the suggested way to tag footpaths and cycleways
> back in May this year:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines&type=revision&diff=1849762&oldid=1845590
>
> I propose that we revert the page back to what it said before these edits.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20191004/07cce4a6/attachment-0001.html>