[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores]

The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or proximity to residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no bearing on the allowed permissions of that way. Assume NSW is similar in their approach and relies on sign posts being present to confirm permissions.

If you track a little further west along that street level imagery where it crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed posted as being a shared way. 
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist are permitted. 

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275&lng=145.16241388889&z=16.86798684701922&pKey=1933421956805153&x=0.47345176124885663&y=0.627570043705694&zoom=0&focus=photo <https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275&lng=145.16241388889&z=16.86798684701922&pKey=1933421956805153&x=0.47345176124885663&y=0.627570043705694&zoom=0&focus=photo>

I’ve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path, does that mean that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?


I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe cyclists are permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as stated under the law.

For the purposes of this conversation I think that bicycle=“undefined/not specified” is a better option that bicycle=no where no signage is present as suggested by Graeme. Thoughts ?


regards,

Sebastian



> On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi Sebastian Azagra,
> 
> Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.
> 
> I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".
> 
> Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
> 2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
> 3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?
> 
> 3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.896764706666&lng=145.28943507&z=17&pKey=428476962255750&focus=photo
> 
> 3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel with a freeway or arterial road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.99755833333299&lng=145.16624444444005&z=17&pKey=469416987632807&focus=photo
> 
> 3c) A path not associated with a road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055&lng=145.32763449&z=17&pKey=494613405004623&focus=photo
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20221008/8d00d94e/attachment.htm>