[talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[iansteer at iinet.net.au]

I think that unless there is explicit signage forbidding bicycles, the ways
should be constructed to permit bicycles (particularly if usage of bicycles
on that path is common).  In other words, use highway=path (always my
preferred), or if you must use highway=footway, add bicycle=yes.

Ian


>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:14:32 +1000
>From: Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>To: Tony Forster <forster at ozonline.com.au>
>Cc: Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.azagra at me.com>, OSM Australian Talk
>	List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits
>Message-ID:
>	<CAD5VjstWcM7CwrEv1xkAx2=_65b84qW1wq89MfDSuH8VQzCV1g at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>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?