[Talk-GB] Cycling in Parks

[Simon Still]

I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In Lambeth.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C>

The bylaws still prohibit cycling.  However, the signs at the entrances to the park say ‘Please cycle responsibly and give way to pedestrians’ and the council encourage cycling in the borough 

Some of the paths were previously tagged as "cycle route” on the basis of some very old ‘London Cycle Network’ maps for a route that was never actually implemented.  Later maps had ambiguity about status - the outer path was shown as a different line to the others but with no reference in the key! 

I was going through removing all ‘route’ tagging (as I dont’ believe it has that formal status or enough grounds to exist in any real form - no signage, markings etc) and updating ALL park paths (except those few where cycling is specifically prohibited) as
- highway=footway
- bicycle=permissive 

As that represents the most accurate legal status AND is correctly repressed as cycle able in the most common cycle map layer - dotted blue line rather than red for the one path I’ve so far missed (the mess on southwest corner are simply lines mowed in longer grass and probably shouldn’t be shown) 
And that ‘permissive status’ means it is routable but not shown as a *route* (blue shading)  

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C




> On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:54, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210113/688fc103/attachment.htm>