[Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Tom Hughes]

I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags:

   resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10

So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of
those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a
misguided attempt to fix that.

Of course that was likely based on some rule in the validator
that is trying push whatever daft path tagging the wiki is
currently trying to promote...

Certainly I think a polite enquiry would have been a better first
response than presuming malice.

Tom

On 03/09/2020 10:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth
> Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on
> the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority".
> 
> In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
> tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing
> through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the
> expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this
> is vandalism.
> 
> It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing
> cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed
> line to a red dashed line.
> 
> Changes made by Skyguy in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106
> 
> Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag
> for now) fixed in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366
> 
> Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like
> surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths
> on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as
> cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public
> 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events.
> 
> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
> 
> There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not
> already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems
> unnecessary.
> 
> The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but
> pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care
> when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people,
> and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop
> if necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
> 
> The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly
> implying pedestrian priority:
> "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
> When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or
> horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians,
> especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you
> are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended
> that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
> Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and
> that this may not be obvious.
> Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or
> at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be
> startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and
> stop when necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code
> 
> BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing.
> 


-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/