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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Apr 8 08:31:02 UTC 2022 

I am not across the arguments, nor am I local so I cannot asses them. So 
I will not hazard a 'guess'.

Highway=path/footway/sidewalk can all have the same tags so the 
differences are perceptions as to what the main tag is. That perception 
is up to the render not the tag nor the mapper. When I first queered the 
difference between 'path' and 'footway' I was told something about 
defaults in the UK being different for them and so rather than add tags 
to all of these ways they chose to have 'paths' with one set of defaults 
and 'footways' with another set of defaults. In Australia 'footways' 
were for use in urban areas .. and 'paths' for country areas.

highway=cycleway again can be tagged the same as the others and again 
relies on the perception of the render. Most people would thin that 
bicycles have some preference here possibly by a larger width, no steps 
and a paved surface.

Return to 'pedantic mode'? NSW has similar exceptions to bicycles riding 
on the foot path  as the Victorian exceptions.

The tag bicycle=no allows for the bicycle to be pushed (but not ridden) 
or carried, at least that is the 'conscientious'.


On 7/4/22 18:40, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 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