[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
Tue Oct 5 03:03:26 UTC 2021


If there is a sign, then it’s =designated, not =yes

 

From: Adam Horan <ahoran at gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 09:24
To: Kim Oldfield <osm at oldfield.wattle.id.au>; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

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 <mailto: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 list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20211005/619951ff/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list