[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Michael Collinson]

Just a thought and I hope not too imperialist sounding:  in UK England 
and Wales law, a distinction evolved between a "footway" and a 
"footpath", just possibly pre-1900 (unclear):

https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/
"'footway' is the modern legal term for ‘that part of the highway set 
aside for pedestrians’, commonly referred to as the pavement, and 
‘footpath’ is the modern legal term for other pedestrian thoroughfares"

I wonder if the same distinction made its way into Victorian state law??

Mike



On 2021-09-19 13:39, 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&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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au