[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores]

I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.
In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority of instances, there aren’t any issues.

In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles but to no avail.









> On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> This really is all already covered under:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability
> 
> and 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
> er
> 
> (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: forster at ozonline.com.au <forster at ozonline.com.au> 
> Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
> To: Kim Oldfield <osm at oldfield.wattle.id.au>; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
> <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
> never be sure what the law is.
> 
> Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them
> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
> (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)
> 
> I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian
> Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from
> the risk of getting a large fine.
> 
> I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the
> ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.
> 
> Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
>>> some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
>>> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
>>> (not defined)which I think is fine.
>>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
>>> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
>>> on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>> 
>> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
>> The is defined in the wiki at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri
>> ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as 
>> part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any 
>> software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We 
>> should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which 
>> doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
>> 
>> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
>> 
>> [*] Is that the name of the person using 
>> osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a 
>> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as 
>> domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that 
>> I'm right.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211003/850b21cf/attachment.htm>