[talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
forster at ozonline.com.au
forster at ozonline.com.au
Thu Apr 7 10:34:55 UTC 2022
Hi Sebastian,
You say "The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with
the Australian Tagging guidelines". I think you are referring to the
words "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW or Vic.,
and highway=footway should be used in general circumstances."
I think you have misinterpreted this. I believe that is referring to
footpaths aka sidewalks, the path between the property line and the
kerb. There has been no dispute about these paths from me. I agree,
sidewalks are best tagged as highway=footway.
Thanks
Tony
> Thanks Andrew. It does appear we are both looking at the same thing
> through different lenses.
>
> The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with the
> Australian Tagging guidelines, hence I’m not exactly clear on the
> objection as the guidelines say that highway=footway should
> generally be used, which i agree with as it is the correct legal
> interpretation.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
>
>
>
> Trying to get a consensus on something that is wrong does not make
> it fact or legal.
> Hypothetically, if we all agreed that we could tag one-way roads as
> bi-directional it does not change the permission status of the road.
>
> I visited a friend across town this passed weekend and came across
> numerous instances where footpaths were tagged as shared paths
> without any signs or line marking. I made comments on the previous
> change set and the Mapper had agreed that the paths should be
> reverted to footway.
>
> There seems to be varied use of shared paths and footways across the
> metropolitan melbourne which is all over the place and really needs
> to be looked at and corrected.
>
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
>> On 7 Apr 2022, at 5:21 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I should have done this for my last message, but let's not and make
>> this directed against any particular mapper, I've updated the
>> thread subject accordingly.
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> 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
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list