[Talk-GB] Cycling in Parks

[Chris Hodges]

Optimistically proposed and prematurely mapped routes can be a real 
problem - I've had one supposedly going across school playing fields 
(Bridgnorth) and one with barbed wire and big "keep out" signs near 
Weston-super-Mare.  The latter has apparently been planned for 10 years 
but the land owner's "over my dead body" might be almost  literally when 
it gets built according to locals.


They shouldn't make it onto the map until they exist on the ground - and 
I wonder how they did (your example and my WsM one). In Bridgnorth I 
made the mistake of believing a sustrans PDF - OSM shows a footpath 
round the playing field (correct) and a gap in NCR45 (incorrect, it goes 
along North Gate; I should be able to fix that from my tracklog) 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C


I'd apply some caution updating all paths even in a single local 
authority's parks.  They often encourage it in some parks but not others 
- a per-park basis might be suitably cautious unless they've published 
something more general. Even with blanket permission I wonder what they 
expect when it's physically difficult (kissing gate etc.)

On 13/01/2021 15:36, Simon Still wrote:
> I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In Lambeth.
>
> 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 
>> <mailto: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/b1f44fae/attachment-0001.htm>