[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