[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
highway=footway.
bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
discussing here.

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
one, but it's a mild preference)

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew and list,
>
> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
> consensus we reach on this list?
>
> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
> email below).
>
> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
> various highway= values at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>
> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
> other states?
> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>
> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>
> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20211005/576fd5b5/attachment-0001.htm>