[talk-au] Path versus Footway

[osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au]

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a boundary relation.

 

In which case it would be possible to either:

 

a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of defaults

(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 18:38
To: 'Little Maps' <mapslittle at gmail.com>; 'OSM-Au' <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks within National Parks (at this stage). I know there are tracks outside of National Parks where such bike restrictions do not apply.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps <mapslittle at gmail.com <mailto:mapslittle at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 7:19 PM
To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> >; OSM-Au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed. In the instance mentioned below, bicycle = no should not be added to urban footways in Vic as routers etc should work that out for themselves based on state legislation. (Or they could look at the entry in the state’s boundary relation, but it seems agreed that few data consumers do that). 

 

On bushwalking tracks in Tassie, bikes are banned on walking paths because they’re classed as vehicles. Again this is legislated and, as I interpreted the comments below, it’s suggested that data users should know this from legislation, and hence not need explicit access tags for bikes, unless access on a specific path deviates from the legislation.

 

However, bikes are allowed on footpaths (footways) in Tassie, so the same features (highway=footways) is, I assume, subject to 2 different legislations in the same state, depending on whether it’s an urban footpath or a bushwalking track. I’m curious how a data consumer / router would know which role a footway (or a path) was playing unless access restrictions were added to all? (Especially if it’s agree that few if any consumers use the National or state access guidelines, as was stated earlier). Isn’t it impossible for them to draw any conclusion unless tags are added? Or is the consensus that urban footpaths (footways) don’t need access tags but bush walking paths (footways) do?

 

Hope this make sense, thanks again, Ian

“ > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') (from Phil)
 
Hi. This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document legislation, the data consumers could worry about what to do with cyclists and footpaths and OSM would concentrate on ground truth. Tony. “
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220203/4766addd/attachment.htm>