[talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 06:59:30 UTC 2020

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 17:38, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal
> > access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated
> > implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used
> > for/by that mode.
> I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed
> cyclist).
> I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly
> designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly
> designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see
> if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used?
> So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated?

You're right that most of the time, designated will be marked or
signposted, but if there is a compelling case I'm open to that.

For example a disabled toilet, it'll have more space, railings next to the
toilet etc. usually it'll have a sign, but if the signage is missing, it's
still wheelchair=designated in my view.

For cycle paths, it'll probably be either green paint (if that's common for
the region), bicycle logo painted on the ground, or a sign with a bicycle.

> > This view is backed up by what
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated
> which is then immediately contradicted by:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted
> itself by the value description template to the right that says marked
> for a particular use.)

It says "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated...", typically, not
always. An official sign is enough in my opinion to indicate legally

> > So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed
> > on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles.
> Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated
> by law rule then designated.
> This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're
> comfortable with the sign post rule or not.

What do you think makes most sense on an ACT footpath that's just a stock
standard footpath with no bicycle markings or specific design for bicycles,
bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated?

I'm still open to hear out other view points, but so far the way I've been
mapping is bicycle=yes indicates legal/physical access and
bicycle=designated indicated signposted for bicycle use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200218/a1cff0f7/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list