[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Sep 20 08:38:15 UTC 2021

On 20/9/21 6:29 pm, Karl Cheng wrote:
> 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
>     <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 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.

The old NSW road rules said

"Any place open to, or used by, the public" ..

So council and supermarket carparks were covered, as were some group of 
people (the public) using private property - with or without permission...

I have no idea what the present ones say .. but I'd imagine something 
similar will be there. And I think other jurisdictions will have similar 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210920/c6e90504/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list