[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 02:09:45 UTC 2021


On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 23:27, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both
> pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and
> bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise.
>

Victoria has some highway=cycleway + foot=no
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bpQ so I think explicitly tagging foot=yes or
foot=no is best if it's signposted as such, it's a clearer assertion that
this has been surveyed and it had dedicated signage indicating foot access,
which is a stronger assertion that just relying on the defaults.

I've seen a proliferation of foot=yes/designated and
> bicycle=yes/designated tags on bike paths. Generally I ignore them
> unless they are wrong. Do they provide any value?
>

I'm speaking for NSW here, but for most shared paths I'll add
foot=designated + bicycle=designated as a way to say there is signage here
indicating both modes signposted/designated. Especially for some paths here
which look and mostly act like a footpath, having those two access tags
mean it doesn't matter if the highway value is flipped between footway and
cycleway, the shared path tagging still remains.


> What happens if the law is changed and adults are allowed to ride on
> footpaths? These tags all become worse than nothing as there is no way
> to tell from OSM which paths have signs prohibiting cycling, and which
> tags are stating the default from before the law was changed.
>

One good reason why it might be best to only explicitly tag and not tag
only based on local law.


> We have default access by highway type documented at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> >
>

And formally defined within the data via
`def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no` on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210923/273e0a6f/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list