[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Sebastian

Yes, 3b and 3c are actually signposted. They were intended as  
hypothetical examples. I asked the question of Ben to get a better  
undersranding of what he thought rather than to support any particular  
argument. I should have explained this in more detail and apologise  
for any confusion.

Re the suggestion of bicycle=undefined, I prefer just highway=path  
where theres no signage.

Tony

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>