[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
Mon Sep 20 02:40:33 UTC 2021


Yeah, I’m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell.

 

e.g. https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath

 

simply lists the two cases together as one.

 

On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.

 

On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at least in my suburb, doesn’t seem to bother putting up any shared path signs, despite the fact that some paths are by their construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly designed as shared paths.

 

I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the surface every few 100m: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png

But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs, they are still footpaths.

 

Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I’m supposed to tag all of these as highway=footway as far as I can tell: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29

 

But I don’t think that really makes sense in this context because you do want the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the 80cm footpaths.

 

When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these larger “footpaths” where mapped as highway=cycleway with various inconsistent tags on top. I’ve since standardized them to:

 

highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed “real” shared paths which are designated)

segregated=no

 

I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is really a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion, and map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it differs to what is defined by the Australian road rules.

 

But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to put up shared path signs for paths that are clearly designed as such) is probably common in Queensland and other states where there is equivalence of unsigned paths and shared paths in regards to bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach some kind of consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the footpath, unless specifically barred.

 

" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath unless prohibited by a ‘NO BICYCLES’ sign. You must give way to pedestrians and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath users."

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

 

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, a footpath.

 

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk” in OSM.

 

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png

 

In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in this case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.

 

From: Kevin Pye <kevin.pye at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.pye at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au> 
Cc: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

 

"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road Rules -- http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

 

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html> , means an area <http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area>  open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians"

 

Not particularly helpful.

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, <forster at ozonline.com.au <mailto:forster at ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

> 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

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different  
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),  
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a  
road."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria  
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line  
and the kerb.

That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.923613888889015 <https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.923613888889015&lng=145.32910000000004&z=17&pKey=941113219764485&focus=photo> &lng=145.32910000000004&z=17&pKey=941113219764485&focus=photo

So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal  
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.

Tony



_______________________________________________
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/20210920/95219181/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list