[talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria was HighRouleur edits
Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a footway? Tony Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria  . . . if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the footpath if the rider is 12 or under if the rider is accompanying a rider entitled too as above if the rider has a child in a child bike seat, or pedaling on a hitch bike https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/bicycle-riders.html Anyone want to tag all that? On 7/4/22 17:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: Hi Tony and Sebastian, There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice here. Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we should be using bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by paint or signage bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes. Is there a wider community view about this? On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, wrote: Hi Sebastian Thanks for participating in this discussion. You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly permitted without signage". This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly permitted without signage. I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or wrong because of other indications which one would need a site inspection to find. You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion". Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or to the opposite. I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule. Thanks Tony > Tony > > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to > verify other edits. > > OSM data relies on being verifiable. > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly > permitted without signage. > Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground rule, as you insist > on disputing map updates that are based what?s on the ground or > lack there of. > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion. > > It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for accuracy? > When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify > data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways > assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is > apparent that bike are not permitted. > > > > > regards, > > Sebastian > >> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: >> ?Hi Sebastian and list >> >> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief >> that a short section of bike route through park should be >> cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows. >> >> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago >> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any >> signage permitting bicycles on said road. >> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle = >> dismount mi
Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria was HighRouleur edits
I am not across the arguments, nor am I local so I cannot asses them. So I will not hazard a 'guess'. Highway=path/footway/sidewalk can all have the same tags so the differences are perceptions as to what the main tag is. That perception is up to the render not the tag nor the mapper. When I first queered the difference between 'path' and 'footway' I was told something about defaults in the UK being different for them and so rather than add tags to all of these ways they chose to have 'paths' with one set of defaults and 'footways' with another set of defaults. In Australia 'footways' were for use in urban areas .. and 'paths' for country areas. highway=cycleway again can be tagged the same as the others and again relies on the perception of the render. Most people would thin that bicycles have some preference here possibly by a larger width, no steps and a paved surface. Return to 'pedantic mode'? NSW has similar exceptions to bicycles riding on the foot path as the Victorian exceptions. The tag bicycle=no allows for the bicycle to be pushed (but not ridden) or carried, at least that is the 'conscientious'. On 7/4/22 18:40, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a footway? Tony Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria  . . . if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the footpath if the rider is 12 or under if the rider is accompanying a rider entitled too as above if the rider has a child in a child bike seat, or pedaling on a hitch bike https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/bicycle-riders.html Anyone want to tag all that? On 7/4/22 17:14, Andrew Harvey wrote: Hi Tony and Sebastian, There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice here. Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we should be using bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by paint or signage bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes. Is there a wider community view about this? On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, wrote: Hi Sebastian Thanks for participating in this discussion. You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly permitted without signage". This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly permitted without signage. I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or wrong because of other indications which one would need a site inspection to find. You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion". Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or to the opposite. I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule. Thanks Tony > Tony > > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to > verify other edits. > > OSM data relies on being verifiable. > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly > permitted without signage. > Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground rule
