I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell.
***
# The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT
I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if
any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths found in the ACT, I
will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if
any). Path types that do not exist in the ACT are not considered or discussed
here.
## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
#### Type A
Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There were
343km as of 30 June 2012.
The ATG says the tags should be:
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no
#### Type B
Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”.
A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There were 2190km of
these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012.
Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no
### CHANGE PROPOSED
NONE
## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the space it
leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and inconsistencies). I
would, therefore, specify specifically what is required. In other words, I am
not changing the ATG but adding something to it that is specific to the ACT.
### CHANGE PROPOSED
I would propose to add the following text to the ATG.
“In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be tagged as
follows:
#### pedestrian ONLY path
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=no
#### cyclist ONLY path
- highway=path
- foot=no
- bicycle= designated“
I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG
## Impacts of this proposal
- Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
- Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
- Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)
### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent with the
ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing.
However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path to make
the description of the path more nuanced are:
- width=*m
- surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt
- footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT including
Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local suburban shopping
centres)
- incline=up/down/%
- access=no/private
- mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM
### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For the most
common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in the ACT legal
default path type
- ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol
- Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no
- Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted
- Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted
After all the paths had been changed to ATG and in the ACT legal default path
type suggested here, the Mapnik style map would show almost all paths in the
ACT as blue dotted lines.
So how do you distinguish between type A and type B paths? Do you need to
distinguish between them? The answer to both questions is the use of relations
in OSM.
Mapnik is only one rendering and there are plenty of others. If the Mapnik
style does not show what you need for your purpose then another standard
rendering style may do a better job. I will put links to some that I have found
in another post.
### Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)
As the type A paths are few but offer often (but not always) a better riding
experience (faster and safer), I would suggest that it does make sense to use
them as priority pathways. Some are “signed bike paths”.
I would save this information in OSM as routes of two types:
- Official routes
- Unofficial routes
As mentioned in the “principles of tagging” post yesterday:
“There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any
width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage,
don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly
at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the
infrastructure. The ACT Government builds it and abandons it.”
It, therefore, makes sense to link the fragments of paths are good into
identifiable routes. Navigation is a problem in Canberra and the signage poor.
The ACT Government and cycling advocacy groups are trying to “fill the gaps”
with better paths to make cycling corridors through the ACT between town
centres. These I mentioned in Discussion G as Principal Community Routes
(PCRs), numbered M100, M200 etc to M900.
But also let the unofficial routes in OSM stand. I quote here from Discussion G:
“ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT
Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the
network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere
requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented
what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or
footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The
last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the
ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent
suburbs. All very practical.”
### Where to get routing information
- Paper map: Your guide to cycling and Canberra, Transport Canberra, 2019
- Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
- Downloadable maps for town centres from the ACT Government
#### Paper map: Your guide to cycling and Canberra, Transport Canberra, 2019
The bike routes in Canberra have been put on a printed map that is readily
available (for locals).
#### Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes
Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure
Practitioner Tool:
http://ACTiveinfrastructure.net.au
#### Downloadable maps for town centres from the ACT Government
ACT Government TCCS now have maps interesting town maps to download.
https://www.transport.act.gov.au/about-us/active-travel/active-travel-in-the-community/cycling-and-walking-maps
I welcome your comments.
keyword: Australia, ACT, routes, relations, ATG, key, path, proposal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi
<herbert.r...@protonmail.com>:
> # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
> I hope you can help.
> (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully
> formated. I recommend Typora.)
> Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines
>
> ## The Issue
> The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in
> cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so
> that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs.
>
> The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you
> are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause
> is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard
> rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to
> solve the problem in the last decade.
>
> The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers
> work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging
> does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the
> congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake
> Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year.
> Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset,
> even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹
>
> ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment
> | ID preset | Correct in the ACT
> | tagging | ID
> editor line style | Mapnik line style |
> | --------------------------------------------------- |
> ------------------------- |
> ------------------------------------------------------------ |
> -------------------- | ----------------- |
> | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default path
> type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no |
> grey/brown dotted | blue dotted |
> | cycle path | No
> | highway=cycleway | blue
> dotted | blue dotted |
> | cycle and foot path | No but close
> | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated foot=designated | blue
> dotted | blue dotted |
> | foot path | No
> | highway=footway | grey
> dotted | red dotted |
> | cycle ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare)
> | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=no |
> grey/brown dotted | blue dotted |
> | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare)
> | highway=path bicycle=no foot=designated |
> grey/brown dotted | red dotted |
>
> Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the
> bottom of this text.
>
> QUESTION
> **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for the
> ACT?**
>
> ## Most commonly used keys
> These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway,
> segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found
> below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is
> signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key
> footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a
> way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the
> inconsistency.
>
> Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and
> segregated can be found in the ACT.
> * segregated=no/yes
> * highway=path/footway/cycleway
> * foot=designated/yes/blank/no
> * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no
> * footway=sidewalk OR missing
>
> ## The ATG says
> Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the
> “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG.
> “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path.
> **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from
> using that path.**”
> Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT.
>
> What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls the
> “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, and the
> properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian Separated
> Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total length of
> paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km.
>
> ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT
> ### Type A
> Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in
> 2012.
> The ATG says the tags should be:
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> ### Type B
> Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any
> “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There
> were more than 2000km of these "footpaths" in the ACT in 2012. Conclusion: in
> the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
> * highway=path
> * foot=designated
> * bicycle=designated
> * segregated=no
>
> Type A and type B paths cannot be distinguished from each other with these
> tags alone. In real life the path markings and signage should help you
> distinguish the two. Generally, path markings and signage are not in OSM.
>
> ## Concluding remarks to paths types in the ACT
> There are effective three paths types in the ACT. The ATG recommend Type A
> and Type B paths are tagged the same way and are 99% or paved, ridable paths
> in the ACT. I will simply refer to them as the DEFAULT type.
>
> Here is a simple way of changing the default, to the bicycle-only or
> pedestrian-only path type. Only one tag needs to be changed for corrections.
> It does not require you to use a preset.
>
> | key | DEFAULT | Pedestrians ONLY | Cyclists ONLY |
> | ---------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- |
> | highway | path | path | path |
> | foot | **designated** | **designated** | no |
> | bicycle | **designated** | no | **designated** |
> | segregated | no | | |
>
> I welcome your comment. 😊
> Keywords: Australia, ACT, highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated, ID
> editor, The Issue, Mapnik
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
