Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Yes Andrew
I would be happy to work with you. We are still under a 15km limit,  
probably going to a 25km limit in 2 weeks. I can get to maybe half of  
the area now for ground truthing and probably 90% in 2 weeks.

Tony


I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly
revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when
conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about
the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data
you're reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you
can decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.

Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this
together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a
screen share?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  wrote:


While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
reverting multiple changesets?

Have we got any experts in that?

-Original Message-
From: stevea 
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer
any
more email ping-pongs.

I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM
reverter
is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."

Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.

SteveA
(where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Adam
>
>> Spotting these
>> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
>
> Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
edits on the same objects.
>
> Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au









___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[nwastra nwastra]

Hi
as you have been discussing reverting changesets, I thought I should mention 
that Ilya Zverev’s Simple Reverter seems to be out of action at present   
https://github.com/Zverik/simple-revert/issues/19 
<https://github.com/Zverik/simple-revert/issues/19> 
This discussion regarding 'Cycling on Victorian paths' has been to use the JOSM 
reverter which should be more suitable for the task.
Nev


> On 13 Oct 2021, at 3:52 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly 
> revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when conflicts 
> are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about the OSM data 
> model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data you're 
> reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you can 
> decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.
> 
> Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this 
> together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a 
> screen share?
> 
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>> wrote:
> While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
> be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
> reverting multiple changesets?
> 
> Have we got any experts in that?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
> To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List  <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> 
> I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
> launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
> his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
> Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any
> more email ping-pongs.
> 
> I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
> that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter
> is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."
> 
> Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.
> 
> SteveA
> (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)
> 
> > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> > <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > Adam
> > 
> >> Spotting these
> >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
> >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history 
> >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history>
> > 
> > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
> me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
> recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
> edits on the same objects.
> > 
> > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
> two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> > 
> > Tony
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[stevea]

On Oct 12, 2021, at 11:08 PM, Adam Horan  wrote:
> Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions, but 
> tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg edited by 
> this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc?

I don’t want to say “absolute no” but the subtle skills that are required for 
“revert” are poorly suited (imo) for MapRoulette.  I like your thinking 
(crowdsource it!) but this is detailed, slow, careful work and not something 
easily “mechanized."
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions,
but tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg
edited by this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc?


On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:56, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly
> revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when
> conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about
> the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data
> you're reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you
> can decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.
>
> Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this
> together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a
> screen share?
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  wrote:
>
>> While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this
>> might
>> be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
>> reverting multiple changesets?
>>
>> Have we got any experts in that?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: stevea 
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
>> To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
>> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>>
>> I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
>> launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
>> his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
>> Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer
>> any
>> more email ping-pongs.
>>
>> I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
>> that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM
>> reverter
>> is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."
>>
>> Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.
>>
>> SteveA
>> (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >> Spotting these
>> >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
>> >
>> > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
>> me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
>> recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
>> edits on the same objects.
>> >
>> > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
>> two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
>> >
>> > Tony
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-au mailing list
>> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly
revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when
conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about
the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data
you're reverting and an understanding of the area you're working in so you
can decide how to handle the conflict and what final state you like.

Tony since you know the data and area well, did you want to work on this
together with me? I can help out with any technical roadblocks, maybe on a
screen share?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:32,  wrote:

> While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
> be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
> reverting multiple changesets?
>
> Have we got any experts in that?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: stevea 
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
> To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
> launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
> his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
> Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer
> any
> more email ping-pongs.
>
> I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
> that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM
> reverter
> is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."
>
> Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.
>
> SteveA
> (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)
>
> > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >> Spotting these
> >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
> >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
> >
> > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
> me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
> recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
> edits on the same objects.
> >
> > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
> two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

While I'm normally all for "you made the mess, you clean it up", this might
be something better tackled by someone with extensive experience in
reverting multiple changesets?

Have we got any experts in that?

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 14:13
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first
launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to
his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in
Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any
more email ping-pongs.

I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send
that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter
is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear."

Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.

SteveA
(where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Adam
> 
>> Spotting these
>> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
> 
> Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries
me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most
recent first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do
edits on the same objects.
> 
> Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following
two swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Hi all
There are 15,000 changes to consider over 651 changesets
Does this sound OK? Start reversions at his #641
Revert in this order:

Sebastian's  Changeset  #comment
  641  112030682#Changing shared paths to foothpaths
  640  111889860#updates to cycling permission
  639  111889673#updates to cycling permission
  638  111703043#updates to cycling permission
  637  111702799#updates to cycling permission

continue reverting in reverse time order till there is not a clear  
improvement from each reversion.

Tony






___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[stevea]

I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first 
launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to his 
Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in 
Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any 
more email ping-pongs.

I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send that 
because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter is for 
those who are, um, "in a higher gear."

Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates.

SteveA
(where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night)

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Adam
> 
>> Spotting these
>> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
>> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history
> 
> Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries me 
> too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most recent 
> first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do edits on 
> the same objects.
> 
> Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following two 
> swapping between path and footway make little difference.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Adam


Spotting these
and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history


Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it  
worries me too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date  
order, ie most recent first. And acting in a timely manner is  
important, before others do edits on the same objects.


Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the  
following two swapping between path and footway make little difference.


Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

I can't help with JOSM on mac, or with reverting specifically.

I would suggest caution with the reversion process though, there are plenty
of ways that have been edited multiple times by HighRouleur. Spotting these
and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess?
eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history

Adam

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 13:14,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I
> recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried
> to install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so
> won’t let me install it"
>
> Can a Mac user please assist him?
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Thanks Steve,

This is the error I get from Finder. I’m running the latest BigSur MacOSX.

 



regards,

Sebastian



> On 13 Oct 2021, at 1:39 pm, stevea  wrote:
> 
> Sebastian, I'd be willing to help you off-list get your (alas, Intel-based 
> only) macOS running JOSM.  It starts with downloading a JRE (Java Runtime 
> Environment) from here:
> 
> https://java.com/en/download/apple.jsp
> 
> After success with that, please send me an email and we can go from there 
> (California and Australian time zone differences notwithstanding!)  It's not 
> that difficult at all.
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2021, at 7:09 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I 
>> recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried to 
>> install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so won’t let me 
>> install it"
>> 
>> Can a Mac user please assist him?
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[stevea]

Sebastian, I'd be willing to help you off-list get your (alas, Intel-based 
only) macOS running JOSM.  It starts with downloading a JRE (Java Runtime 
Environment) from here:

https://java.com/en/download/apple.jsp

After success with that, please send me an email and we can go from there 
(California and Australian time zone differences notwithstanding!)  It's not 
that difficult at all.

Steve

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 7:09 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I 
> recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried to 
> install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so won’t let me 
> install it"
> 
> Can a Mac user please assist him?
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Hi

Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I  
recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried  
to install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so  
won’t let me install it"


Can a Mac user please assist him?

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Warin]

On 5/10/21 8:53 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

Hi Adam,

On 5/10/21 10:23 am, Adam Horan wrote:

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.
I only included highway=pedestrian as it is part of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
which I'm trying to get a consensus on. What you you think the default 
access tags should be for highway=pedestrian in Australia?


bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
discussing here.

Also included only because it is part of the default access wiki page.
Given it doesn't get used much in Australia is it worth deviating from 
the worldwide defaults?



I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless 
there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Agreed.


Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway 
"The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are 
used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians" so highway=footway is not 
appropriate for many bike paths which are mainly used by bikes, and 
less so by pedestrians.

or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer 
this one, but it's a mild preference)
In Victoria there are not many bike only paths, so it makes more sense 
to use this for paths for combined bike and foot traffic. This is also 
how it is commonly used on OSM in Victoria (and the rest of Australia?).


As mentioned by  by Sebestian, using highway=cycleway is also much 
easier to visually distinguish. As using highway=cycleway an equally 
valid way to tag, I'd consider this to be practical tagging, and not 
tagging for the renderer. According to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer it is 
actually//"Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer".


If we set the default in Australia for highway=cycleway to be foot=yes 
then we don't need to repeat foot=yes on each way.



This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Likewise.



I would suggest then you set the defaults for Victoria rather than 
Australia?


South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Northern Territory and 
Tasmania allow bicycles on footpaths unless there is a sign against it.





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Michael Collinson]

A bit late to the party on this one. But a couple of observations follow 
up Graeme's 2012-10-03 point about the myriad of "You can ride on a 
footpath if" exceptions and how to deal with them.


1) I suggest rigorously using and making synonymous footway=sidewalk [1] 
with what are clearly and unambivalently "road-related" areas in VIC [2] 
and NSW, i.e. generally urban footways that clearly (mostly) parallel a 
vehicular road with/without a nature strip and don't have any cycle 
signage. That throws the problem of exceptions on to router software, 
which I think is the right approach.


Perhaps emphasise this relationship in:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways

2) However, this does create an un-level router playing field favouring 
the big boys. Sarah Hoffman raised the general issue at SOTM in her talk:


2021: Boundaries, Places and the Future of Tagging
Sarah Hoffman (keeper of Nominatum)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAzljx1ewZ0&list=PLQNy8KsDknCoq3AkVd5Nlgtwp1fnAWOcn&index=16

While she is talking about geocoding and all its local variations, her 
general point is that there is a layer of cultural and regulatory 
metadata which is missing from OpenStreetMap. This allows larger 
corporations to provide this and potentially "take over" OpenStreetMap 
by simply being able to offer a much better use-experience than the rest 
of us can by refining their software to take into account local needs. I 
am currently tasked along with Andy Allan of look at take over risks to 
the OpenStreetMap Foundation and will be adding this.


What I personally think we need is a completely separate open data-set 
that sets out to capture all this information basically on the premise 
"If you are in this polygon, then these rules apply" for language, 
access, addressing, whatever. It currently remains an I'd like to do 
this if I had time project, but if anyone is interested in working with 
me on it, let me know.


Mike

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk


[2] Matthew Seale 2021-10-03:
"

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 
<https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H>


As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply in 
roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and nature 
strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas and are 
 subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian Road 
Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all unmarked 
(I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in Victoria away 
from roads. "




On 2021-10-03 07:08, Thorsten Engler via Talk-au wrote:


Ah, I now see there are subtle differences in the definition of “road 
related area” in Victoria and NSW…


While the NSW rules, as written, expand the definition of “road 
related area” to any public space which has as it’s primary purpose 
use by pedestrians, the Victoria rules do not seem to do that.


Though the Victoria version of the road rules includes this:

a place that is a road by virtue of a declaration under section 
3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986


and if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down, you get to:

(2) The Governor in Council may by Order published in the Government 
Gazette-


  (a) declare any place or class of places, whether open to vehicles 
or not, to be or not to be a road or roads or a road related area or 
road related areas for the purposes of this Act;


Which means that to actually figure out what is a road or road related 
area in Victoria, someone will have to do an exhaustive search of the 
Government Gazette.


*From:*Matthew Seale 
*Sent:* Sunday, 3 October 2021 14:18
*To:* Sebastian Azagra ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 
<https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H>


As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply 
in roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and 
nature strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas 
and are  subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian 
Road Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all 
unmarked (I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in 
Victoria away from r

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Warin]

On 5/10/21 2:57 pm, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au wrote:
I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue 
dotted lines for a path.


Pardon. But OSM is a data base, not really a map.

The "default OSM map" is a guide as to what a map might look like to be 
used by mappers to check their work in a basic way.


If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes 
are allowed by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then 
you would need to see the tags associated with it to know the 
permissions.



Seeing the tags .. not really meant to be 'seen' in a text format on a 
'real map'. Other than certain specific tags which might be 'seen' (such 
as description=* and others).


Map makers take the OSM data to make maps (rendering them), they can 
chose what and how they render.


Does that help?





On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan  wrote:


Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but 
to others there's a clear difference. 😊
Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference 
for shared paths.


As for /"Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than 
to review the tags for permissions. "/
This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers 
our aim is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate 
sources of data, and following agreed OSM conventions as much as 
possible.


Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is 
someone else's problem.

People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

*OSM default*: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 

*CycleOSM*: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y 
 
*(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
*Cycle Map*: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C 
 
*(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
*Transport Map*: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T 
 
*(Public transport emphasised)*


Cheers,

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores > wrote:


Hi Adam

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria.

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy
paths used signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the
tags highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to
review the tags for permissions.

regards,

Sebastian


On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather
then footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current
tag is highway=footway.
bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types
we're discussing here.

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag,
unless there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case
bicycle=no

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't
prefer this one, but it's a mild preference)

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a
vote process, or does someone take it upon themselves to
document in the wiki any consensus we reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and
foot= tags which duplicate the default values for
highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access
rules for various highway= values at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia


and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community
(yet)." Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide",
except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know
enough about bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew and list,
>
> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
> consensus we reach on this list?
>

Personally, I think we should document this at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways
I think at the moment we have a clear consensus. Anyone can add this to the
wiki.


> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
> email below).
>

Yeah the wiki is a good place for this (we can also link back to this
thread on the archives to document why they have been documented this way.

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various
> highway= values at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>
> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
> other states?
> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>

We should point out when it's signposted as not allowed or allowed it's
always a good idea to explicitly tag even if it's the documented default.

highway=motorway, bicycle=no - it's okay, but in the eyes of the law it's
allowed unless otherwise signposted as not allowed, so a bit counter to
this default, because of this I'd still advocate always including a bicycle
tag on motorways.

highway=pedestrian, bicycle=yes - yes, given pedestrian streets are roads
vehicles can sometimes drive on, and bicycles are considered vehicles then
bicycles are usually allowed.

All states and territories in Australia already have the
def:highway=footway;access:bicycle tag set. NSW and VIC are no, the rest
are yes.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Sebastian

Now that the DWG has made a ruling on bicycle=no, I am keen to restore  
Birdsland's bike paths.


The Shire of Yarra Ranges, the owner, is proud of them
https://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/Experience/Parks-Recreation/Birdsland-Reserve
and list bicycle paths among its features, further saying: The park  
has walking, riding and mountain biking trails.


If I revert changeset 111016252, I think I will get all of Birdsland  
but also some other stuff. Are you happy for me to revert all of  
changeset 111016252 or do you prefer to do it yourself checking each  
way.


Thanks
Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Adam,

On 5/10/21 10:23 am, Adam Horan wrote:

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.
I only included highway=pedestrian as it is part of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
which I'm trying to get a consensus on. What you you think the default 
access tags should be for highway=pedestrian in Australia?


bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
discussing here.

Also included only because it is part of the default access wiki page.
Given it doesn't get used much in Australia is it worth deviating from 
the worldwide defaults?



I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless 
there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Agreed.


Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway 
"The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are 
used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians" so highway=footway is not 
appropriate for many bike paths which are mainly used by bikes, and less 
so by pedestrians.

or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer 
this one, but it's a mild preference)
In Victoria there are not many bike only paths, so it makes more sense 
to use this for paths for combined bike and foot traffic. This is also 
how it is commonly used on OSM in Victoria (and the rest of Australia?).


As mentioned by  by Sebestian, using highway=cycleway is also much 
easier to visually distinguish. As using highway=cycleway an equally 
valid way to tag, I'd consider this to be practical tagging, and not 
tagging for the renderer. According to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer it is 
actually//"Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer".


If we set the default in Australia for highway=cycleway to be foot=yes 
then we don't need to repeat foot=yes on each way.



This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Likewise.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Phil Wyatt]

There are also specialised open Cycle maps with their own renders of useful 
facilities for cyclists

 

https://www.opencyclemap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193

https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/

 

https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=15/-38.0694/145.1391/cyclosm

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 2:37 PM
To: Sebastian Azagra Flores 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to others 
there's a clear difference. 😊

Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for 
shared paths.

 

As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review 
the tags for permissions. "

This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim is 
to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, and 
following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. 

 

Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's 
problem.

People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

 

OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193

CycleOSM:   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y> &layers=Y 
(Bicycle routes emphasised)

Cycle Map:   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C> &layers=C  
(Bicycle routes emphasised)

Transport Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T> &layers=T 
(Public transport emphasised)

 

Cheers,

 

Adam

 

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores mailto:s.aza...@me.com> > wrote:

Hi Adam

 

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 

 

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed 
as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

 

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below

or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

 

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags 
for permissions. 

regards,

 

Sebastian 





On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Hi Kim,

highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.

bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
here.

 

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be

highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

 

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)

either

highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)

or

highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, 
but it's a mild preference)

 

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

 

Adam

 

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we 
reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently 
these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways 
in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria 
and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with 
def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.

On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all 
advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the 
record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where 
signage is indicating such

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue dotted 
lines for a path. 
If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes are allowed 
by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then you would need to see 
the tags associated with it to know the permissions. 
Hope that makes sense. 


> On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to 
> others there's a clear difference. 😊
> Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for 
> shared paths.
> 
> As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review 
> the tags for permissions. "
> This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim 
> is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, 
> and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. 
> 
> Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's 
> problem.
> People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.
> 
> OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
> CycleOSM:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Cycle Map:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C  (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Transport Map: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T (Public 
> transport emphasised)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores  wrote:
>> Hi Adam
>> 
>> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 
>> 
>> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used 
>> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>> 
>> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
>> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
>> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>> 
>> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the 
>> tags for permissions. 
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Sebastian 
>> 
 On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> Hi Kim,
>>> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
>>> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
>>> highway=footway.
>>> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
>>> discussing here.
>>> 
>>> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
>>> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
>>> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>>> 
>>> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
>>> either
>>> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
>>> or
>>> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
>>> one, but it's a mild preference)
>>> 
>>> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
 On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
  wrote:
 Hi Andrew and list,
 
 How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
 or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
 consensus we reach on this list?
 
 We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
 duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
 Andrew's email below).
 
 We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
 various highway= values at 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
 Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
 
 highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
 highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
 bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
 highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up 
 by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
 Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
 other states?
 These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
 with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
 
 On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can 
> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed 
> out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but 
> Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've 
> actually surveyed in person and 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to
others there's a clear difference. 😊
Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for
shared paths.

As for *"Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to
review the tags for permissions. "*
This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim
is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data,
and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible.

Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone
else's problem.
People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

*OSM default*: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
*CycleOSM*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Cycle Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C  *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Transport Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T *(Public
transport emphasised)*

Cheers,

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores 
wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria.
>
> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used
> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>
> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags
> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>
> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the
> tags for permissions.
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
> discussing here.
>
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's
> a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
> one, but it's a mild preference)
>
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>>
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
>> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
>> consensus we reach on this list?
>>
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
>> email below).
>>
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
>> various highway= values at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>>
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
>> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>>
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten,
>> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal
>> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can
>> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out
>> cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary
>> shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually
>> surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation has change recently
>> (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then
>> we should proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes
>> against the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in
>> these errors.
>>
>> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
>> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
>> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing 
>> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Adam

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed 
as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags 
for permissions. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
> here.
> 
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
> 
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
> one, but it's a mild preference)
> 
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>> 
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
>> does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus 
>> we reach on this list?
>> 
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
>> email below).
>> 
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
>> highway= values at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>>  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>> 
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
>> state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>> 
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim 
>>> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath 
>>> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be 
>>> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases 
>>> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows 
>>> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in 
>>> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be 
>>> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should 
>>> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the 
>>> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>>> 
>>> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
>>> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
>>> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

If there is a sign, then it’s =designated, not =yes

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 09:24
To: Kim Oldfield ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

Hi Kim,

highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.

bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
here.

 

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be

highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

 

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)

either

highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)

or

highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, 
but it's a mild preference)

 

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

 

Adam

 

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we 
reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently 
these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways 
in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria 
and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with 
def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.

On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all 
advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the 
record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where 
signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where Sebastian / 
HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. 
Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed 
that the situation has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, 
though I think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk 
changes have brought in these errors.

 

Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
work through and revert these changes you've made?

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi, For shared paths, agree with Andrew that the tags should be bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. There’s a legacy tag issue in Victoria where many shared paths are still tagged as highway=cycleway only, which is slowly being fixed. Philip From: Andrew HarveySent: Monday, 4 October 2021 8:49 PMTo: Sebastian Azagra FloresCc: Philip Mallis; OSM Australian Talk ListSubject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ? From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged as bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. Most are highway=cycleway but this is more just by convention, and a bit of bias from cyclists, highway=footway or highway=path are equally okay in my opinion. Never heard of footpath=yes before, it's undocumented and has practically no use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footpath. What do you use footpath=yes to mean? 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
highway=footway.
bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
discussing here.

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
one, but it's a mild preference)

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew and list,
>
> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
> consensus we reach on this list?
>
> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
> email below).
>
> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
> various highway= values at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>
> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
> other states?
> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>
> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>
> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 22:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.

Either do I, but these could possibly be left as unspecified, because it
would / may depend on how each one is signed?

>  Is Queensland bicycle=yes?

Yes:
*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*

but:
*You cannot ride on a road or footpath where bicycle signs or road markings
specifically ban bicycles*

&
*You must keep left and give way to pedestrians on footpaths and shared use
paths*

https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/maryborough/files/2013/03/Queensland_road_rules_cyclists_brochure.pdf

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
consensus we reach on this list?


We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
Andrew's email below).


We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
various highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:


highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken 
up by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. 
In Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about 
the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.


On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no 
can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has 
pointed out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no 
but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this 
you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation 
has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I 
think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the 
bulk changes have brought in these errors.


Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be 
willing to work through and revert these changes you've made?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
(for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.

Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
work through and revert these changes you've made?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared
> path?
> Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ?
>

>From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged as
bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. Most are
highway=cycleway but this is more just by convention, and a bit of bias
from cyclists, highway=footway or highway=path are equally okay in my
opinion.

Never heard of footpath=yes before, it's undocumented and has practically
no use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footpath. What do you use
footpath=yes to mean?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Philip,

Tagging footpaths with bicycle=blank/unspecified would work as the OSM default 
doesn’t allow bicycles and this fixes the issue of routing software thinking 
that bicycles are permitted. 

The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?
Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ?



> On 4 Oct 2021, at 3:54 pm, Philip Mallis  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through).
>  
> I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my 
> work.
>  
> To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a 
> path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road 
> Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small 
> legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ 
> or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the 
> placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.).
>  
> A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of 
> the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several 
> exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others.
>  
> Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a 
> designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or 
> streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and 
> forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, 
> while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on 
> bikes.
>  
> In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a 
> shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils 
> are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the 
> carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves 
> are also under the jurisdiction of local councils.
>  
> As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ 
> as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating 
> otherwise (one way or the other).
>  
> One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new 
> estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils 
> when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and 
> linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with 
> local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is 
> or isn’t signed or linemarked.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Philip
>  
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>  
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>  
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>  
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>  
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>  
>  
> Today's Topics:
>  
>1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)
>3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)
>  
>  
> --
>  
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: Andy Townsend 
> Cc: OSM-Au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID:
> 
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>  
> Thanks for that, Andy.
>  
> In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
> changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
> Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
> according to signs or specific local laws".
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
>  
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> > 
> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & 
> > local laws would then apply?
> > 
> > (on the very narrow qu

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

It is coming through Philip, but I think you've replied to a digest message
and so it's been grouped/threaded differently.

I think what you've said is really useful, and i hope everyone in the main
thread has read it :)

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 15:54, Philip Mallis  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through).
>
>
>
> I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my
> work.
>
>
>
> To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on
> a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian
> Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are
> small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a
> ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM
> mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.).
>
>
>
> A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many
> of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are
> several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others.
>
>
>
> Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a
> designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or
> streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged
> and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other
> reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted
> by people on bikes.
>
>
>
> In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or
> isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act,
> councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of
> whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most
> parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils.
>
>
>
> As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving
> ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking
> stating otherwise (one way or the other).
>
>
>
> One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new
> estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils
> when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage
> and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be
> checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status,
> regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
>
>1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>
>2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)
>
>3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000
>
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>
> To: Andy Townsend 
>
> Cc: OSM-Au 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Message-ID:
>
> <
> cap4zaxpyaat+e-erehxqxoeqa4rmfrzsxnvd856noemhces...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
>
> Thanks for that, Andy.
>
>
>
> In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
>
> changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
>
> Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
>
> according to signs or specific local laws".
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
&g

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 11:05, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?

Done!

Thanks

Graeme

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Matthew Seale]

These are the results of some Mapilliary browsing cycleways/shared paths
adjacent to primary roads in and around Greater Dandenong where Sebastian /
HighRouleur  removed bicycle access (converted to footpath or bicycle=no).
Each of these has visible shared cycling path signs on Mapilliary.



I entered changeset comments earlier on Hallam Road way 31659577 below
after a tag change yesterday.

I have not put all of these against the remainder of his changesets.



Regards

Matthew



Hallam Road from Pound Rd to Ormond Rd

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736809442/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=312660870443397

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=895599964330562

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=205753421362506

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=508544383674853



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31659577/history (already commented on
changeset 11203682)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=144954007603964

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2031215400361053

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=851076202144993

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=497400694795407

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=566530107645541

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656





Cranbourne Rd from Centre Rd to Greaves Rd

Southbound

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43974586/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1125882161173090

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4044452288977189 (shared path signage
just visible)



Greaves Rd from The Avenue to Cranbourne Road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51792707/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=957912521623904

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=734196640529461

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=732457320763410



Ernst Wanke Rd from Parkhill Drive to Narre Warren Rd North

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74268817/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=585890135726372

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1631883537013186



Narre Warrern North Rd from Monash Freeway to Princes Hwy southbound

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114377605/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2655642424738245

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=201983328212269

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=609180500479076 (maybe – blurred/angled
view of shared path sign)



Thompsons Road – Merinda Park railway bridge LXRP

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812851/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812850/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320636187/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251657/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251655/history



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLHIolV0d08 (LXRP Youtube overview from the
OMS source tag on several of those cyclepaths)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=314224830110424

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=297352711968846

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=504431641001656

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=198251272127970



Thomspons Rd from South Gippsland Hwy to Narre Warren Rd

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/839517705/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=490841682271128

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=500638321126014



Hammond Rd from Dandenong Bypass to Webster St

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/807140065/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=196724275601939

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2871075936555149

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=146143874152929

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 7:20 PM Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental
> issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.
> In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software
> will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the
> majority of instances, there aren’t any issues.
>
> In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in
> correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to
> allow bicycles but to no avail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> This really is all already covered under:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability
>
> and
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
> er
>
> (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Hi all
>
> I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
> never be sure what the law is.
>
> Given that uncertainty we have two principles to 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all, (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through). I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work. To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.). A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others. Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes. In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils. As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other). One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Philip From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.orgSent: Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PMTo: talk-au@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to    talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to    talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at    talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."  Today's Topics:    1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)   2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)   3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)  -- Message: 1Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000From: Graeme Fitzpatrick To: Andy Townsend Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian pathsMessage-ID:    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for that, Andy. In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "AllowedAccess" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowedaccording to signs or specific local laws". Thanks Graeme Thanks Graeme  On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:> > > > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & local laws would then apply?> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"> > It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of transport so you should go that way".> > An example I've added myself is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other carriageway of the road.> > In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic, and bicycle=designated that a 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/10/2021 22:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
according to signs or specific local laws".


Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?

Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all, I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work. To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.). A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others. Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes. In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils. As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other). One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Philip  From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.orgSent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 10:07 PMTo: talk-au@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to    talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to    talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at    talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."  Today's Topics:    1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Sebastian Azagra Flores)   2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)  -- Message: 1Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:20:13 +1100From: Sebastian Azagra Flores To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.auCc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian pathsMessage-ID: <4a2c53af-0458-42a4-8f61-88d204c9a...@me.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don?t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority of instances, there aren?t any issues. In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles but to no avail. > On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:> > This really is all already covered under:> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability> > and > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render> er> > (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").> > -Original Message-> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  > Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths> > Hi all> > I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will> never be sure what the law is.> > Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.> (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)> > I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian> Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from> the risk of getting a la

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for that, Andy.

In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
according to signs or specific local laws".

Thanks

Graeme

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & 
> local laws would then apply?
>
> (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
>
> "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it sounds 
> like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the definition at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:
>
> "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a 
> government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"
>
> It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or 
> Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of 
> transport so you should go that way".
>
> An example I've added myself is at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near 
> Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across 
> the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that view, 
> but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout where it's 
> safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other carriageway of 
> the road.
>
> In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a "highway=path" 
> should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic, and 
> bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be treated like a 
> highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean "legal access rules for 
> this mode are not a simple yes or no and you should consult local signage and 
> local laws".
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that 
signage & local laws would then apply?



(on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)

"=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it 
sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the 
definition at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:


"indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a 
government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"


It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y 
or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your 
mode of transport so you should go that way".


An example I've added myself is at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 
near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly 
across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left 
of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the 
roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along 
the other carriageway of the road.


In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a 
"highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot 
traffic, and bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be 
treated like a highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean 
"legal access rules for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you 
should consult local signage and local laws".


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue 
in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.
In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will 
not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority 
of instances, there aren’t any issues.

In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I 
have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles 
but to no avail.









> On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> This really is all already covered under:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability
> 
> and 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
> er
> 
> (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
> Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
> never be sure what the law is.
> 
> Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them
> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
> (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)
> 
> I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian
> Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from
> the risk of getting a large fine.
> 
> I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the
> ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.
> 
> Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
>>> some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
>>> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
>>> (not defined)which I think is fine.
>>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
>>> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
>>> on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>> 
>> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
>> The is defined in the wiki at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri
>> ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as 
>> part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any 
>> software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We 
>> should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which 
>> doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
>> 
>> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
>> 
>> [*] Is that the name of the person using 
>> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a 
>> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as 
>> domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that 
>> I'm right.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Kim,

Some of the feedback I have received relates to changing shared paths to 
footpaths. According to the access restrictions listed on 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 
)
 this would by default not permit bicycles - I agree with this approach. 
However not all foot paths are correctly tagged as there are many instances 
where they have footpaths =yes, which is incorrect for Victoria.



In the other link you shared 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability 
) its clearly 
says " Do not enter incorrect data just because it will help a map renderer, a 
navigation system or some other data consumer which has problem with the 
correct data”. 
The problem I have raised relates to incorrect data in OSM that is causing to 
map renderers to work incorrectly, and as a result I have been fixing data 
accordingly. This is inline with the OSM guidelines.




> On 3 Oct 2021, at 4:35 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will some 
>> times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The majority of the 
>> time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not defined)which I think 
>> is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist takes 
>> information from OSM and then creates a route based on the permission 
>> assigned to the road/path in OSM.
> 
> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults). The 
> is defined in the wiki at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>  
> 
> and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part of 
> the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software which 
> ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not tag all 
> footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't understand the 
> defaults already configured in OSM.
> 
> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
> 
> [*] Is that the name of the person using osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
> ? You don't appear to have used a 
> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
> often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.
> 
> Regards,
> Kim
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

This really is all already covered under:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

and 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
er

(which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi all

I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
never be sure what the law is.

Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them
the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
(Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)

I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian
Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from
the risk of getting a large fine.

I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the
ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.

Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.

Tony

> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
>>  some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
>> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
>> (not defined)which I think is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
>> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
>> on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>
> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
> The is defined in the wiki at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri
> ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
>
> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as 
> part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any 
> software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We 
> should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which 
> doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
>
> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
>
> [*] Is that the name of the person using 
> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a 
> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as 
> domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that 
> I'm right.
>
> Regards,
> Kim





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

Except for the missing r, you are correct. 

 

Outlook is unfortunately a bit finicky and doesn’t send a Name when you use 
sender address different from the primary one of the email account. But I’m 
forced to send emails using the exact address that is subscribed to the list.

 

I’m using different email addresses for for every list, website, person that I 
give an email address to, but *@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:*@thorsten.engler.id.au>  all ends up in the same inbox. (Using 
different email addresses makes it pretty obvious when some site has been 
hacked or has passed on your information to some undesired third party, and it 
allows me to block the whole email address at the mail server level if it 
becomes a major spam vector.)

 

From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 15:36
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.

[*] Is that the name of the person using osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ? You don't appear to have used a 
name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Hi all

I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we  
will never be sure what the law is.


Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll  
call them the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's  
problem" principle. (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)


I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think  
Sebastian Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to  
protect people from the risk of getting a large fine.


I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is  
on the ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map  
renderers.


Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.

Tony


On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
 some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
(not defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.


In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
The is defined in the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part
of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software
which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not
tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't
understand the defaults already configured in OSM.

It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.

[*] Is that the name of the person using
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a name
in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as
domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that
I'm right.

Regards,
Kim






___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will 
some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The 
majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not 
defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist 
takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on the 
permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.


In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults). 
The is defined in the wiki at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part 
of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software 
which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not 
tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't 
understand the defaults already configured in OSM.


It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.

[*] Is that the name of the person using 
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a name 
in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.


Regards,
Kim
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Thorsten Engler via Talk-au]

Ah, I now see there are subtle differences in the definition of “road related 
area” in Victoria and NSW… 

 

While the NSW rules, as written, expand the definition of “road related area” 
to any public space which has as it’s primary purpose use by pedestrians, the 
Victoria rules do not seem to do that.

 

Though the Victoria version of the road rules includes this:

 

a place that is a road by virtue of a declaration under section 3(2)(a) of the 
Road Safety Act 1986

 

and if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down, you get to:

 

(2) The Governor in Council may by Order published in the Government Gazette- 

  (a) declare any place or class of places, whether open to vehicles or not, to 
be or not to be a road or roads or a road related area or road related areas 
for the purposes of this Act;

 

Which means that to actually figure out what is a road or road related area in 
Victoria, someone will have to do an exhaustive search of the Government 
Gazette.

 

From: Matthew Seale  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 14:18
To: Sebastian Azagra ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via the link 
from the VicRoads website)

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H

 

As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply in roads 
and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and nature strips adjacent 
to roads are considered a road related areas and are  subject to the footpath 
cycling restrictions in those areas.

 

However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian Road Rules 
that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all unmarked (I.e. the vast 
majority) off-road and unsealed paths in Victoria away from roads.  

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

>>>
In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this
whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related
areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the
Road Rules for details."
<<<

Looking at the Road Rules for NSW:

---
13   What is a road related area

(2)  However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in these
Rules (except in this Division) to a road related area includes a reference
to-

...

(c)  any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
Dictionary,

Dictionary:

footpath, except in rule 13(1), means an area open to the public that is
designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians.
---

Putting that together you get:

A road related area includes a reference to any other area that is open to
the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by
pedestrians.

Meaning, if it's public, and it's meant for use by pedestrians, it is a
"road related area" and the Road Rules apply.





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Tony

Advice from Vic Police has only been verbal. They won’t go into writing. 
I verified this with a friend of mine who is a cop. 

They referred me to the penalties listed on the Vic Roads websites that carries 
a $545 fine for riding on a footpath. 
This information is freely available. 



> On 3 Oct 2021, at 2:58 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> Hi Sebastian
> Welcome to talk-au
> 
> A NOTE FOR NON-AUSTRALIANS reading this
> a UK pavement or a US sidewalk is an Australian footpath
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Graeme Fitzpatrick's opinion that blanket bicycle=no on *all* 
> footpaths is wrong.
> 
> In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this 
> whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related 
> areas".
> Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
> cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the 
> Road Rules for details."
> 
> Thirdly there is the issue of ground truth 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
> "Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality
> Things such as local traffic rules should only be mapped when there are 
> objects which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic sign, road 
> surface marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some way should not be 
> mapped, as they are not universally verifiable." I note that if they changed 
> the legislation, we would have to find and edit maybe a million ways.
> 
> Fourthly (as Graeme Fitzpatrick also notes) you say "Members of the community 
> have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic police who have 
> confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is specifically signed to be 
> used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a legal 
> perspective."
> You have been asked before but not answered the question, is this verbal or 
> written advice, if written, can you give a URL?
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
>> Hi there,
>> 
>> I?m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding  access 
>> on footpaths which have bicycle=No
>> 
>> In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous  
>> discussion relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and  not 
>> ride on footpaths due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian  cyclists know that 
>> we are not permitted to ride of footpaths.
>> Members of the community have even sought confirmation of  permissions from 
>> Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative  that unless a path is 
>> specifically signed to be used by a cyclist,  then cyclists are not 
>> permitted to use it from a legal perspective.
>> 
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  some 
>> times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The  majority of the 
>> time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified  (not defined)which I 
>> think is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by  cyclist 
>> takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on  the permission 
>> assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>> 
>> I?d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM  community on 
>> the best way to tag paths so that they do not allow  cyclists.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> regards,
>> Sebastian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

bicycle=designated implies the presence of one of these signs:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078435264196668
/unknown.png

bicycle=no implies the presence of this sign:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/894078611248807946
/unknown.png

The absence of any explicit sign should be tagged by the absence of an
explicit bicycle tag.

In that case, routers should follow the
"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no
tag on the state boundary relations:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

Routers that incorrectly assume a bicycle=yes for footways in the absence of
an explicit bicycle tag are faulty and need to be fixed.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 13:58
To: Sebastian Azagra ; Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi Sebastian
Welcome to talk-au

A NOTE FOR NON-AUSTRALIANS reading this
a UK pavement or a US sidewalk is an Australian footpath



I agree with Graeme Fitzpatrick's opinion that blanket bicycle=no on
*all* footpaths is wrong.

In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this
whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related
areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the
Road Rules for details."

Thirdly there is the issue of ground truth
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
"Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality Things
such as local traffic rules should only be mapped when there are objects
which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic sign, road surface
marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some way should not be mapped,
as they are not universally verifiable." I note that if they changed the
legislation, we would have to find and edit maybe a million ways.

Fourthly (as Graeme Fitzpatrick also notes) you say "Members of the
community have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic police who
have confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is specifically signed
to be used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a
legal perspective."
You have been asked before but not answered the question, is this verbal or
written advice, if written, can you give a URL?

Thanks
Tony

> Hi there,
>
> I?m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding  
> access on footpaths which have bicycle=No
>
> In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous   
> discussion relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and  
>  not ride on footpaths due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian   
> cyclists know that we are not permitted to ride of footpaths.
> Members of the community have even sought confirmation of   
> permissions from Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative   
> that unless a path is specifically signed to be used by a cyclist,   
> then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a legal perspective.
>
> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will   
> some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
> (not defined)which I think is fine.
> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on  
> the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>
> I?d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM   
> community on the best way to tag paths so that they do not allow   
> cyclists.
>
>
>
> regards,
> Sebastian





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Matthew Seale]

Hi Sebastian 

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via the link 
from the VicRoads website)
https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H

As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply in roads 
and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and nature strips adjacent 
to roads are considered a road related areas and are  subject to the footpath 
cycling restrictions in those areas.

However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian Road Rules 
that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all unmarked (I.e. the vast 
majority) off-road and unsealed paths in Victoria away from roads.  

As Tony asked in one of the comments on your changesets, it would be useful to 
have a link or URL to the VicPol advice, e.g. particularly if there is some 
other Victorian regulation that extends the Victorian footpath cycling 
restrictions to other paths away from areas adjacent to roads.  

Regards
Matthew


From: Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 9:18 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi there,

I’m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding access on 
footpaths which have bicycle=No

In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous discussion 
relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and not ride on footpaths 
due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian cyclists know that we are not permitted 
to ride of footpaths. 
Members of the community have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic 
police who have confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is specifically 
signed to be used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not permitted to use it from 
a legal perspective. 

In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will some times 
have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The majority of the time 
allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist takes 
information from OSM and then creates a route based on the permission assigned 
to the road/path in OSM.

I’d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM community on the 
best way to tag paths so that they do not allow cyclists. 


regards,
Sebastian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[forster]

Hi Sebastian
Welcome to talk-au

A NOTE FOR NON-AUSTRALIANS reading this
a UK pavement or a US sidewalk is an Australian footpath



I agree with Graeme Fitzpatrick's opinion that blanket bicycle=no on  
*all* footpaths is wrong.


In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that  
"this whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road  
related areas".

Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of  
the Road Rules for details."


Thirdly there is the issue of ground truth  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground

"Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality
Things such as local traffic rules should only be mapped when there  
are objects which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic  
sign, road surface marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some  
way should not be mapped, as they are not universally verifiable." I  
note that if they changed the legislation, we would have to find and  
edit maybe a million ways.


Fourthly (as Graeme Fitzpatrick also notes) you say "Members of the  
community have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic police  
who have confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is  
specifically signed to be used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not  
permitted to use it from a legal perspective."
You have been asked before but not answered the question, is this  
verbal or written advice, if written, can you give a URL?


Thanks
Tony


Hi there,

I?m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding  
 access on footpaths which have bicycle=No


In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous   
discussion relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and  
 not ride on footpaths due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian   
cyclists know that we are not permitted to ride of footpaths.
Members of the community have even sought confirmation of   
permissions from Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative   
that unless a path is specifically signed to be used by a cyclist,   
then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a legal perspective.


In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will   
some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
(not defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on  
 the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.


I?d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM   
community on the best way to tag paths so that they do not allow   
cyclists.




regards,
Sebastian






___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 08:17, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> the strict rules the cyclists must follow and not ride on footpaths due to
> Victorian Road Rules. Victorian cyclists know that we are not permitted to
> ride of footpaths.
>

Not arguing with you but:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-rules/a-to-z-of-road-rules/bicycles

(Under "Infrastructure related rules" if it doesn't open)

"You can ride on a footpath if you:

   - are a child under the age of 13
   - are a person 13 and over who is accompanying a child under the age of
   13
   - are an adult 18 or over who is cycling with a young child in a child
   seat attached to their bicycle, or with a child pedalling on a bike
   attachment at the back of an adult bicycle
   - have been given and are following the conditions on a medical
   certificate that says you have a disability that makes it difficult for you
   to ride on the road. You need to follow the conditions on your medical
   certificate and show it to a police officer or authorised person when asked
   [or?] are an adult accompanying someone with a medical certificate cycling
   on a footpath."

So a blanket bicycle=no on *all* footpaths is wrong.

I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage &
local laws would then apply?

Members of the community have even sought confirmation of permissions from
> Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is
> specifically signed to be used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not
> permitted to use it from a legal perspective.
>

I'd like to know what they're basing that on?

 Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au