[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Mon Oct 4 07:01:25 UTC 2021

Hi Philip,

Tagging footpaths with bicycle=blank/unspecified would work as the OSM default doesn’t allow bicycles and this fixes the issue of routing software thinking that bicycles are permitted. 

The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?
Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ?

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 3:54 pm, Philip Mallis <philip at philipmallis.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through).
>  
> I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work.
>  
> To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.).
>  
> A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others.
>  
> Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes.
>  
> In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils.
>  
> As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other).
>  
> One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Philip
>  
> From: talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PM
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>  
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>                 talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>  
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>                 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>                 talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>  
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>                 talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>  
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>  
>  
> Today's Topics:
>  
>    1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>    2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)
>    3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> To: Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>
> Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID:
>                 <CAP4zaXpyaaT+E-eREHxQxOEQA4RmFRZsXnvd856nOEMhCesHdg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>  
> Thanks for that, Andy.
>  
> In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
> changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
> Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
> according to signs or specific local laws".
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
>  
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & local laws would then apply?
> > 
> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
> > 
> > "<transport mode>=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:
> > 
> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"
> > 
> > It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of transport so you should go that way".
> > 
> > An example I've added myself is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other carriageway of the road.
> > 
> > In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic, and bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean "legal access rules for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you should consult local signage and local laws".
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>  
>  
>  
> ------------------------------
>  
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:16:34 +1100
> From: Philip Mallis <philip at philipmallis.com>
> To: "talk-au at openstreetmap.org" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID: <1B285132-2B85-44BE-9A41-627A974C8DEF at hxcore.ol>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>  
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211004/1a04f427/attachment-0001.htm>
>  
> ------------------------------
>  
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 02:05:49 +0100
> From: Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>
> To: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID: <2b591862-2793-76ef-72f8-0df99357ceb8 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>  
>  
> On 03/10/2021 22:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
> > changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
> > Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
> > according to signs or specific local laws".
>  
> Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ------------------------------
>  
> Subject: Digest Footer
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>  
>  
> ------------------------------
>  
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
> ***************************************
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211004/13bfff3e/attachment.htm>