[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 09:40:40 UTC 2021
On 5/10/21 2:57 pm, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au wrote:
> I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue
> dotted lines for a path.
Pardon. But OSM is a data base, not really a map.
The "default OSM map" is a guide as to what a map might look like to be
used by mappers to check their work in a basic way.
> If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes
> are allowed by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then
> you would need to see the tags associated with it to know the
> permissions.
Seeing the tags .. not really meant to be 'seen' in a text format on a
'real map'. Other than certain specific tags which might be 'seen' (such
as description=* and others).
Map makers take the OSM data to make maps (rendering them), they can
chose what and how they render.
Does that help?
>
>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan <ahoran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but
>> to others there's a clear difference. 😊
>> Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference
>> for shared paths.
>>
>> As for /"Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than
>> to review the tags for permissions. "/
>> This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers
>> our aim is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate
>> sources of data, and following agreed OSM conventions as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is
>> someone else's problem.
>> People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.
>>
>> *OSM default*:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193>
>> *CycleOSM*:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y>
>> *(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
>> *Cycle Map*:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C>
>> *(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
>> *Transport Map*:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T>
>> *(Public transport emphasised)*
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.azagra at me.com
>> <mailto:s.azagra at me.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Adam
>>
>> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria.
>>
>> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy
>> paths used signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>>
>> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the
>> tags highway=footway + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
>> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>>
>> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to
>> review the tags for permissions.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan <ahoran at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:ahoran at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <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 <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
>>> <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
>>> <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/20211006/072060e1/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list