Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 17:38, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal > > access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated > > implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used > > for/by that mode. > > I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed > cyclist). > > I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly > designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly > designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see > if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used? > So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated? > You're right that most of the time, designated will be marked or signposted, but if there is a compelling case I'm open to that. For example a disabled toilet, it'll have more space, railings next to the toilet etc. usually it'll have a sign, but if the signage is missing, it's still wheelchair=designated in my view. For cycle paths, it'll probably be either green paint (if that's common for the region), bicycle logo painted on the ground, or a sign with a bicycle. > > This view is backed up by what > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated > > which is then immediately contradicted by: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted > itself by the value description template to the right that says marked > for a particular use.) > It says "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated...", typically, not always. An official sign is enough in my opinion to indicate legally dedicated. > > So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed > > on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. > > Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated > by law rule then designated. > > This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're > comfortable with the sign post rule or not. > What do you think makes most sense on an ACT footpath that's just a stock standard footpath with no bicycle markings or specific design for bicycles, bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated? I'm still open to hear out other view points, but so far the way I've been mapping is bicycle=yes indicates legal/physical access and bicycle=designated indicated signposted for bicycle use. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode. I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed cyclist). I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used? So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated? This view is backed up by what https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated which is then immediately contradicted by: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted itself by the value description template to the right that says marked for a particular use.) So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated by law rule then designated. This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're comfortable with the sign post rule or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
My understanding is as follows: yes means that there is the legal right to use something e.g. you have the right to walk by foot on a sidewalk. designated means that there is a legal instrument (generally signage and/or possibly road marking depending on your state) that *specifically* gives you permission to use a given feature. For instance, a shared path is one which bicycles and pedestrians can legally use together, and this is designated by a shared path sign (AU:R8-2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AAustralia_R8-2.svg?wprov=sfla1). In this case it would be appropriate for a shared pathway to have both foot and bicycle be set to designated in my opinion. Theoretically you could add foot=yes to every sidewalk and/or footway however my understanding is this key is implied, and will also throw and error in osmose. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 15:59, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/02/2020 3:44 pm, Ash Logan wrote: > > In line with this, I've drafted an osmosis TagTransform file that can > > turn the raw TfNSW dataset (after being run through JOSM's OpenData > > plugin, for example) and turn it into the usual OSM tagging schema. > > Check it out: > > Question: do we have a community view on what exactly the difference is > between access yes and access designated? > I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode. This view is backed up by what https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. A cyclepath would be bicycle=designated since it's signposted/designed for that mode of transport. Same goes for wheelchair=yes/designated (okay for wheelchairs vs. signposted for wheelchairs), or lanes:bus=yes/designated, one says the bus can use the lane, the other says it's an explicit/signposted bus lane. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
