[talk-au] "designated" for foot and bicycle (was: Re: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

Andy Townsend ajt1047 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 11:31:56 UTC 2019


On 29/09/2019 11:34, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use 
>> mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is 
>> foot=designated+bicycle=designated.
>
> Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you 
> can't walk on it:
>
> http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s239.html 
>
>
> vice versa if it's designated for pedestrians then you can't ride on it:
>
> http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s249.html 
>
>
>
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but my 
recollection of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28280889 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144351108 in Perth matches the current 
mapping (apart from the names on the ways - I'd say that it belongs on 
the relation rather than the name).  They're designed for use by foot 
and bicycle traffic, and foot and bicycle traffic is at the very least 
actively encouraged from using them in preference to the parallel 
roads.  Whether that should be "=yes" or "=designated" on these examples 
is a good question though.

In the UK I'd tend to use "=designated" less than most people - for 
where there is explicit signage routing a certain sort of traffic a 
certain way.  However, my recollection* of those shared paths in Perth 
was that it would apply there.

Best Regards,

Andy

* from a while ago, so obviously things may have changed.





More information about the Talk-au mailing list