Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote: I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way. Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know! Gareth Yes - bicycle=permissive seems correct based on the description so far (not that I've been there) if there's no public right of way. We're talking England here, not somewhere enlightened like Scandinavia or Scotland. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
If iD really is prompting changing highway=cycleway->highway=footway without preserving cycle access, we can expect to see cycle routing becoming badly broken in a lot of places. Some of these edits were made 3 weeks ago and nothing like that appears to have been reported elsewhere. There also appears to be no justification in the wiki for assuming that highway=cycleway should not be used where pedestrians have priority, unless I have missed it. In general, the GB assumption is that pedestrians have priority on infrastructure shared with cyclists. Personally, I don't really care whether the top level tag is cycleway or footway, as long as routing, access and other physical characteristics are correct. In any case, my first presumption was carelessness, not malice. Breaking cycle routing in this part of London is very unhelpful, particularly at the start of the new school term. On 03/09/2020 10:39, Tom Hughes wrote: > I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags: > > resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10 > > So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of > those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a > misguided attempt to fix that. > > Of course that was likely based on some rule in the validator > that is trying push whatever daft path tagging the wiki is > currently trying to promote... > > Certainly I think a polite enquiry would have been a better first > response than presuming malice. > > Tom [...] >> In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access >> tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing >> through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the >> expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this >> is vandalism. >> ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
3 wrz 2020, 11:58 od o...@live.co.uk: > Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that > also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know! > It would be bicycle tag, not access:bicycle___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
I think highway should be reverted to cycleway. There's a misunderstanding that highway=cycleway implies priority to bicycle riders, when it actually relates just to the number of transport modes which can use it. Bridleway equates to three modes: walkers, bikes & horses. DaveF On 03/09/2020 11:02, Robert Skedgell wrote: Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level highway=* tag alone. I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly and warn me that I'll need to dismount in a few places. Repairing routing as quickly as possible was my priority, although it could take weeks for some routers to restore functionality. In this case, I think that if there is any tagging for the renderer, the target renderer was OpenCycleMap rather than OSM Carto. On 03/09/2020 10:40, Ken Kilfedder wrote: These changes should be reverted in my view. But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes. Both look like blue dashed lines. They look indistinguishable. So an honest pedestrian mapper might easily jump to the wrong conclusion and make changes of the sort you've described below. Perhaps the right way forward is to suggest changes to how osm.org displays shared ways - red dash for dedicated pedestrian, blue dash for dedicated cycleway and alternating for shared? Maybe something to indicate priority? Without changes like this, I can see this sort of thing happening again. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk [...] It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed line to a red dashed line. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
I think access=permissive could have unfortunate consequences for motor vehicle routing, unless routers ignore highway=footway|cycleway anyway. Some of these paths should probably have motor_vehicle=private added (together with some gates and removable/rising bollards), as maintenance and event vehicles do use them. On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote: > I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public > space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way. > > Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that > also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know! > > Gareth > >> On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:42, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: >>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging >>> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: >>> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive >> >> I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a >> bicycle=permissive would be confusing? >> >> In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive >> means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians >> are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there >> seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around. >> >> To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use >> highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded >> highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on >> the ground. >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> >> -- >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level highway=* tag alone. I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly and warn me that I'll need to dismount in a few places. Repairing routing as quickly as possible was my priority, although it could take weeks for some routers to restore functionality. In this case, I think that if there is any tagging for the renderer, the target renderer was OpenCycleMap rather than OSM Carto. On 03/09/2020 10:40, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > These changes should be reverted in my view. > > But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of > communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and > elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes. Both look like blue dashed lines. > They look indistinguishable. So an honest pedestrian mapper might easily jump > to the wrong conclusion and make changes of the sort you've described below. > > Perhaps the right way forward is to suggest changes to how osm.org displays > shared ways - red dash for dedicated pedestrian, blue dash for dedicated > cycleway and alternating for shared? Maybe something to indicate priority? > Without changes like this, I can see this sort of thing happening again. > > --- > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk [...] >> >> It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing >> cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed >> line to a red dashed line. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way. Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know! Gareth > On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:42, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging >> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: >> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive > > I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a > bicycle=permissive would be confusing? > > In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive > means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians > are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there > seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around. > > To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use > highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded > highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on > the ground. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
On 03/09/2020 10:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging >> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: >> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive > > I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a > bicycle=permissive would be confusing? > > In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive > means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians > are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there > seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around. > > To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use > highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded > highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on > the ground. > > Bye > Frederik > The rationale for using permissive here is that there isn't really any right of way through the park, so the park's operators can and do close parts of it with little or no notice for events and maintenance. Otherwise, I would probably be more inclined to use highway=cycleway + segregated=no. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
Hi there, Unless there's a "history" to this I recommend that you assume good intent. Seems Skyguy made an embarrassing mistake there. Please also don't assume "tagging for the renderer" or "vandalism", those two OSM curse words ;) the mapper explicitly stated their intention in the changeset comment, and it appears to be motivated by the genuine status of the park. By the way, the Olympic Park is technically private property not public land, so local rules set by the park owner might take precedence over generic Highway Code. Best Dan Op do 3 sep. 2020 om 10:30 schreef Robert Skedgell : > > A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth > Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on > the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority". > > In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access > tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing > through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the > expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this > is vandalism. > > It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing > cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed > line to a red dashed line. > > Changes made by Skyguy in: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106 > > Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag > for now) fixed in: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366 > > Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like > surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths > on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as > cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public > 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events. > > I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging > principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: > highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive > > There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not > already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems > unnecessary. > > The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but > pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care > when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, > and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop > if necessary." > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 > > The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly > implying pedestrian priority: > "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. > When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or > horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, > especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you > are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended > that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. > Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and > that this may not be obvious. > Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or > at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be > startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and > stop when necessary." > https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code > > BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. > > -- > Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
Hi, On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: > I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging > principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: > highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a bicycle=permissive would be confusing? In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around. To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on the ground. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
These changes should be reverted in my view. But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes. Both look like blue dashed lines. They look indistinguishable. So an honest pedestrian mapper might easily jump to the wrong conclusion and make changes of the sort you've described below. Perhaps the right way forward is to suggest changes to how osm.org displays shared ways - red dash for dedicated pedestrian, blue dash for dedicated cycleway and alternating for shared? Maybe something to indicate priority? Without changes like this, I can see this sort of thing happening again. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, at 10:29 AM, Robert Skedgell wrote: > A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth > Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on > the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority". > > In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access > tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing > through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the > expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this > is vandalism. > > It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing > cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed > line to a red dashed line. > > Changes made by Skyguy in: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106 > > Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag > for now) fixed in: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366 > > Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like > surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths > on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as > cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public > 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events. > > I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging > principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: > highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive > > There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not > already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems > unnecessary. > > The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but > pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care > when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, > and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop > if necessary." > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 > > The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly > implying pedestrian priority: > "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. > When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or > horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, > especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you > are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended > that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. > Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and > that this may not be obvious. > Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or > at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be > startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and > stop when necessary." > https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code > > BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. > > -- > Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags: resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10 So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a misguided attempt to fix that. Of course that was likely based on some rule in the validator that is trying push whatever daft path tagging the wiki is currently trying to promote... Certainly I think a polite enquiry would have been a better first response than presuming malice. Tom On 03/09/2020 10:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority". In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this is vandalism. It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed line to a red dashed line. Changes made by Skyguy in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106 Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag for now) fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366 Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events. I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems unnecessary. The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly implying pedestrian priority: "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious. Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary." https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority". In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this is vandalism. It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed line to a red dashed line. Changes made by Skyguy in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106 Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag for now) fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366 Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events. I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems unnecessary. The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly implying pedestrian priority: "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious. Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary." https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
