[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au]

In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889007668096819260/unknown.png

Everything that sort of looks like a footpath has to be assumed to be a footpath.

After having a quick look, I think most of what got really is a footpath. But there are probably some errors.

e.g. this here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850699423/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.994347&lng=145.275723&z=19.334804029853068&pKey=973985916705405&focus=photo&x=0.4859326202768015&y=0.5905877763133818&zoom=0

should really be tagged as :

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
segregated=yes

The fact that the footpath is mapped separately, but the cycleway is tagged as cycleway:left=track on the road complicates things unnecessary. It would be better to either tag both separately (as above) or tag both on the road.

and further up the road, here:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.991993667&lng=145.27608583300002&z=17&pKey=168126275188591&focus=photo&x=0.4901788209737611&y=0.36933104386182475&zoom=0

should be split into separate:

highway=footway
and 
highway=cycleway

It's a bit annoying that the council did a really bad job with signing here, because this sign:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.990109333&lng=145.276258&z=17&pKey=1126201011221699&focus=photo&x=0.4920214322722534&y=0.4508931174020654&zoom=0

Should also have been at the point where the footpath and cycleway split.



-----Original Message-----
From: forster at ozonline.com.au <forster at ozonline.com.au> 
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 09:16
To: Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>
Cc: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Hi all
HighRouleur has replied at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252

"In case you weren’t aware, Victorian roads rules state that riding not a footpath is not permitted. Hence there does not need to be a sign to indicate no bikes.
The only exception apply to shared paths (bike and pedestrians) which are signed for use by bikes."

And I have in turn replied

Tony

>
> On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:
>> I think I've tried to contact this user before.
>
> Yes you did:
>
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886
>
> For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My 
> Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom 
> of the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like 
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942&comme
> nted
> that includes that "uid".
>
> Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL 
> like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .
>
>>
>> However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite   
>> problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow   
>> cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,
>
> They've now specifically been asked about that in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now 
> definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to 
> mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to 
> explain things a bit more.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see 
> http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning





_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au