nStreetMap-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
Ap
ge-
> 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] Cyc
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
gt; 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
>&
---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 firs
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 itâs not signed for the latest Mac OSX so
wonât let me install it"
Can a
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
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 rul
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
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?
>
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
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
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
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
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
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 +
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
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 cons
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 -
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 /
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
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
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
ents 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)
>
>
> ---
ying, 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)
>
t;
> (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, (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
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".
nal 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>
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
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
ken] 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 unle
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
-
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 uncertain
n 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 Vic
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
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
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
>>>
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
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.
ubject: 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
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
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
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:
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
