[talk-au] HighRouleur edits
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 07:50:54 UTC 2022
Pedantic mode:
Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria . . .
if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the
footpath
if the rider is 12 or under
if the rider is accompanying a rider entitled too as above
if the rider has a child in a child bike seat, or pedaling on a hitch bike
https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/bicycle-riders.html
Anyone want to tag all that?
On 7/4/22 17:14, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Hi Tony and Sebastian,
>
> There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care
> deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best
> intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible.
> You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me
> everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it
> doesn't appear there is any malice here.
>
> Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things
> should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's
> on the ground.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions
> provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in
> my view we should be using
> bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that
> is by paint or signage
> bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage
>
> In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does
> appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's
> currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is
> a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that way I think
> that should be enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore
> bicycle=yes.
>
> Is there a wider community view about this?
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Sebastian
>
> Thanks for participating in this discussion.
>
> You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
> permitted without signage".
>
> This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
> with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
> permitted without signage.
>
> I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is
> unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or
> wrong because of other indications which one would need a site
> inspection to find.
>
> You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you
> insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the
> ground or
> lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no
> signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".
>
> Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus
> view, if
> there is no signage other mappers might come to the same
> conclusion or
> to the opposite.
> I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of
> what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't
> follow the on the ground rule.
>
> Thanks
> Tony
>
> > Tony
> >
> > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to
> > verify other edits.
> >
> > OSM data relies on being verifiable.
> > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a
> > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary
> > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive
> > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of
> > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly
> > permitted without signage.
> > Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground rule, as you insist
> > on disputing map updates that are based what?s on the ground or
> > lack there of.
> > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and
> > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.
> >
> > It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for
> accuracy?
> > When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify
> > data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways
> > assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is
> > apparent that bike are not permitted.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> >> ?Hi Sebastian and list
> >>
> >> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my
> belief
> >> that a short section of bike route through park should be
> >> cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
> >>
> >> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
> >> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any
> >> signage permitting bicycles on said road.
> >> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =
> >> dismount might be the most appropriate.
> >>
> >> Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated
> >> 14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no in 636 changesets. He
> >> no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.
> >>
> >> Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to
> >> footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not
> >> being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9
> >> such edits in the last 4 days.
> >>
> >> The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to
> >> check, the path might or might not be better described as a
> >> footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of
> >> Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.
> >>
> >> So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian
> >> will continue to change cycleways and shared paths into
> footways OR
> >> let Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not
> >> acceptable to the community. Please let them both know in clear
> and
> >> unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect others to speak
> for
> >> you.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting forster at ozonline.com.au:
> >>
> >>> Hi Sebastian and list,
> >>>
> >>> 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically
> Changeset:
> >>> 118627943
> >>>
> >>> I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
> >>> Changeset: 118627943
> >>>
> >>> I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern
> part
> >>> appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a
> footpath, the
> >>> bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the
> footpath
> >>>
> >>> The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22
> and 23
> >>> show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what
> used to
> >>> be in the circle before it faded.
> >>>
> >>> Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.
> >>>
> >>> 18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of
> >>> Tricks Reserve
> >>>
> >>> 18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
> >>> 51 shows this sign more clearly
> >>>
> >>> Tony
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> 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/20220407/c27176a7/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list