[talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Warin]

On 06/10/19 09:47, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote:
> I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell.
> ***
> # The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT
> I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in 
> the ACT (if any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths 
> found in the ACT, I will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then 
> describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if any). Path types that do not exist in 
> the ACT are not considered or discussed here.
>
> ## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT
> ### CURRENT GUIDELINES
> #### Type A
> Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There 
> were 343km as of 30 June 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 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012.
> Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
> - highway=path
> - foot=designated
> - bicycle=designated
> - segregated=no
>
> ### CHANGE PROPOSED
> NONE
>
> ## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path
> ### CURRENT GUIDELINES
> I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the 
> space it leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and 
> inconsistencies). I would, therefore, specify specifically what is 
> required. In other words, I am not changing the ATG but adding 
> something to it that is specific to the ACT.
>
> ### CHANGE PROPOSED
> I would propose to add the following text to the ATG.
> “In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be 
> tagged as follows:
> #### pedestrian ONLY path
> -    highway=path
> -    foot=designated
> -    bicycle=no
No.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
The tag to use for pedestrian ways

highway=footway
and the addition tags that may be used
foot=yes, bicycle=no, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/*
>
> #### cyclist ONLY path
> -    highway=path
> -    foot=no
> -    bicycle= designated“
No again.

The tag to use for bicycle ways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
highway=cycleway
and the addition tags that may be used
foot=no, bicycle=yes, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/*

None of this is Australian specific .. so it does not go on the ATG...

>
> I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG
>
> ## Impacts of this proposal
> -    Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
> -    Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
> -    Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)
>
> ### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
> The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent 
> with the ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing.
>
> However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path 
> to make the description of the path more nuanced are:
> -    width=*m
> -    surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt
> -    footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT 
> including Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local 
> suburban shopping centres)
> -    incline=up/down/%
> -    access=no/private
> -    mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM

How is this Australian specific?
>
> ### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
> I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For 
> the most common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in 
> the ACT legal default path type
> -    ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol
> -    Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated 
> segregated=no
> -    Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted
> -    Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted
>
How renders show the tagging is up to them, we should not tag for the 
render.