[Talk-GB] Cycling in Parks

[Chris Hodges]

It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky!  I've seen examples in 
Swindon and Telford as well, in both cases for very good reasons where 
the road equivalent isn't very suitable.  At least if the council put up 
a sign pointing bikes that way it should be clear, but such signs are 
all too often vague, misleading, or contradictory

On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Talk-GB mailing list
>     > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20210113/46361af2/attachment-0001.htm>