[Talk-GB] Cycling in Parks

[SK53]

I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either
explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several
multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public
footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving
path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
> park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.
>
> I found a page on the council website encouraging cycling in their parks:
> https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9
>
> Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in designated places:
>
> https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Steven.
> >
> > Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the
> default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you
> go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for
> segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are
> useful for routers!)
> >
> > As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws
> forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining
> the bylaws or forbidding cycling?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
> >> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
> >> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
> >> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
> >> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
> >> would know).
> >>
> >> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
> >> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
> >> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
> >> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
> >> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
> >> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
> >> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.
> >>
> >> What would work best to capture this situation?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Steven
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20210113/40afb325/attachment.htm>