[Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Tony Shield]

Wiki says

bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle> 	yes 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes> 	Where bicycles 
are permitted, overriding default access (such as to motorways that 
permit bicycles as commonly found in western parts of North America)
bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle> 	designated 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated> 	Where a 
way has been specially designated 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated>(typically 
by a government) for bicycle use

So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no signs 
indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway.

'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in 
England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully 
ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set 
apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. 
So in the absence of any evidence - no bicycles.

In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is bothered 
unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark this in OSM? 
Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?

Tony

On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
> be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
> bicycle=designated.
>
> If the question is here:
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
> then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
> decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
> tag like a footway
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.
>>
>> If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then I'd tag it as
>>
>> highway=cycleway
>> bicycle=designated
>> foot=designated
>> segregated=no
>> surface=asphalt  (in this case)
>> width=*
>>
>> If you know it's a public footpath add:
>> designation=public_footpath
>>
>> If you know the footpath's reference add:
>> prow_ref=*
>>
>> Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?
>>
>> The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.
>>
>> Cheers
>> DaveF
>>
>> On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?
>>
>> Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>>
>> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201121/69a4eace/attachment.htm>