[talk-au] Path versus Footway

Wed Feb 2 22:34:55 UTC 2022

Hi Thorsten,

Many thanks for that detailed explanation. 

Sounds like your request is to at least update the footway/bicycle restrictions in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia to at least what is listed in the state relations, even though this has not been ‘endorsed’ by the community in any process (but appears to be the legal status of bikes on footpaths?), and may not be used by data consumers. 

…. and then work on getting the def:syntax incorporated as defaults into the database somehow?

I am happy to edit that wiki, with community guidance, to at least show what is in the relations def:’s if that is acceptable. I also note other countries have notes in respect of some restrictions so if folks have links to relevant material I don’t think it hurts to add them.

Cheers - Phil

From: osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:13 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Tasmania:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently:

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

There are no default values defined on Australia:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500

Now, it’s worth pointing out that the proposal that this tagging scheme is based on:

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults

a.	Never went through RFC or voting
b.	Envisions that the def tags are placed on a separate type=defaults relation which is then a member of role defaults of the boundary relation, instead of being applied directly to the boundary relation as we have done.

As such it is exceedingly unlikely that any type of data consumer is actually using them.

Nonetheless, that proposal represents the only attempt I’m aware of to actually define defaults inside the OSM database instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and shout “Who knows? Whatever..”

So really, in reality, defaults are whatever the developer of every single data consumer decided.

Our choices come down to:

a) Just shrug and let all data consumers and mappers make up their mind on their own
b) At least attempt to somehow write down on the wiki what defaults mappers should assume, and data consumers hopefully accept
c) use (and extend use of) that somewhat unwieldy def: syntax to make our wishes in regards to defaults explicit in the database. It would at least allow us to point to it and say “see, we explicitly and in a machine readable form recorded our assumed defaults,” if any data consumer asks.

For the other states and territories, currently defined defaults are:

SA:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

WA:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

NT:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

Qld:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

NSW:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

"def:highway=living_street;maxspeed"=10

"def:highway=residential;maxspeed"=50

Vic:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

ACT:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

Jervis Bay Territory:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330

none

From: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> phil at wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:46
To:  <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' < <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

Hi Thorsten,

Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not usually editable by mappers?

Cheers - Phil

From:  <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au < <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' < <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

That table is just the suggested defaults.

We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I think using the format specified here:  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think.

Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.

There isn’t really a fully accepted way used by all data consumers to specify defaults in OSM currently.

So at the end, it really comes down to whatever defaults any particular data consumer applies.

As long as you explicitly tag access, any type of path, foot/cycle/bridle-way can be made to reflect whatever you want.

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick < <mailto:graemefitz1 at gmail.com> graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32
To: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> phil at wyatt-family.com>
Cc:  <mailto:osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au < <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that are exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway?

By that list, yes?

Thanks

Graeme

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220203/f368e3b2/attachment-0001.htm>