[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags
qantas94heavy at gmail.com
Mon Sep 20 08:29:26 UTC 2021
On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <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:
> 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 what I understand, this whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to
"roads" and "road related areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas".
See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules for details.
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
- Karl Cheng (Qantas94Heavy)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au