[talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria was HighRouleur edits

forster at ozonline.com.au forster at ozonline.com.au
Thu Apr 7 08:40:51 UTC 2022 

Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you  
support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a  
footway?
Tony



> 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

More information about the Talk-au mailing list