Hi all
I am thinking that OSM maybe could better confine itself to what can
be ground truthed.
If a path exists, motor vehicles are physically excluded and that
there is no signage
motor_vehicle=no highway=path
if there's signage then =designated or no
Its not for us to judge if the path is legally a footpath. Applying a
bicycle=no is not even correct because under 12 year olds and
accompanying adults can use it.
Let the map renderers and routing engines worry about the legalities
which change over time and which apply equally to the same physical
features and can be applied "globally" by them and let OSM concentrate
on the ground truthed physical features.
Tony
Yeah, I?m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal
difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in
regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell.
e.g.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath
simply lists the two cases together as one.
On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.
On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at
least in my suburb, doesn?t seem to bother putting up any shared
path signs, despite the fact that some paths are by their
construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly designed as shared paths.
I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the
surface every few 100m:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png
But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs,
they are still footpaths.
Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I?m supposed to tag
all of these as highway=footway as far as I can tell:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29
But I don?t think that really makes sense in this context because
you do want the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the
80cm footpaths.
When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these
larger ?footpaths? where mapped as highway=cycleway with various
inconsistent tags on top. I?ve since standardized them to:
highway=cycleway
foot=designated (should that be only yes?)
bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed ?real? shared paths
which are designated)
segregated=no
I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:
Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated
cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is
really a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even
non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion,
and map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it
differs to what is defined by the Australian road rules.
But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to
put up shared path signs for paths that are clearly designed as
such) is probably common in Queensland and other states where there
is equivalence of unsigned paths and shared paths in regards to
bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach some kind of
consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags
& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the
footpath, unless specifically barred.
" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath
unless prohibited by a ?NO BICYCLES? sign. You must give way to
pedestrians and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or
endanger other footpath users."
Thanks
Graeme
On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:
Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:
Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to
walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)
official signs I linked, a footpath.
It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as
?sidewalk? in OSM.
e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png
In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren?t
in this case) all of these are ?footpaths? as defined by law.
From: Kevin Pye mailto:kevin@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags
Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/le
