# Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset
## The Issue
It is clear from the OSM dataset for in the ACT, that it is the product of
using the editor presets for paths. The OSM Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG)
is consistent with the real use and the legal definition of "community paths"
in the ACT (and verifiable) but this is completely ignored by the mappers. No
single incidence of this tagging exists in the ACT. Using ACT data from 2012,
98% of ACT paths should be "community paths". The disconnect between the OSM
ATG (correct) and the OSM path data (false) for the ACT is disturbing.
## QUESTION
What should we do about this?
## what you need to know
- Community paths ( permitted for both bikes and pedestrians) make up 98% off
all paths that exist in the ACT.
- Editor presets overwhelmingly dominate in OSM dataset for the ACT: almost all
the paths in the ACT are tagged with the Foot Path preset or the Cycle Path
preset and some with the Cycle & Foot Path preset. The OSM ATG recommended
tagging is NOT USED in the ACT. Prove it yourself below. :-)
## Most paths in the ACT are community paths
"Community paths" (official term) are the most common path type in the ACT and
correspond in the OSM ATG to the tagging:
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no
Quoting the ACT document (link below) "Guidelines for community path repairs
and maintenance":
"Footpaths and cycle paths (referred to as community paths) are provided to
assist the community with walking and cycling activities. As at 30 June 2012,
there was 2,533 kilometres of community paths in the ACT (2,190 kilometres of
footpaths and 343 kilometres of off-road cycle paths). Community paths can be
used by pedestrians, cyclists and motorised mobility devices (electric
wheelchairs and mobility scooters/buggies that cannot travel over 10 kilometres
per hour)."
source:
https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/roads-paths/cycling/policy-for-footpath-maintenance
Back in 2012, there were 2533km of paths. As far as I know there where no bike
ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths at that time. Some bike ONLY paths have been
built since: the Civic city loop (approx 4km in 2013), Woden bike path (2km),
and Belconnen Bikeway (4.7km to be completed in 2020). None of these paths
existed in 2012 so the calculation below is conservative. In the new suburbs,
many community paths have been built since. They are not "footpaths"!
(1) Total paths in community paths 2533km
(2) Total "bike ONLY" paths know: approx 25km
(3) Double item 2 for possible "pedestrian ONLY" path duplication (unlikely):
total now approx 50km
(4) There is approx 50km of bike ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths
(5) Calculate bike ONLY and pedestrian ONLY paths as a percentage of the total
1.97% (50/2533)
(6) The difference gives you the percentage of community paths (both bike and
pedestrian) = 98%
**Community paths (both bike and pedestrian) make up 98% off all paths in the
ACT.**
## Frequency distribution of path presets in the OSM ACT dataset
This can be best done visually from a live data set using the overpass-turbo
tool. This "analysis" is a visuall comparison the standard ID editor presets
with the ATG tagging recommended for the ACT. I will provide a link for each
scenario.
**Almost all the paths in the ACT are tagged with the Foot Path preset or the
Cycle Path preset and some with the Cycle & Foot Path preset.**
### Foot Path preset (symbol "walking man“)
frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: VERY COMMON
overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MU7
tags:
- highway=footway
### Cycle Path preset (symbol blue bike)
frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: COMMON
overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MU8
tags:
- highway=cycleway
### Cycle & Foot Path preset (symbol blue bike)
#### ID editor preset
frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: NONE
overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUb
tags:
- cycleway=highway
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
#### Alternate preset (not sure which editor though)
frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: SOME
overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUe
tags:
- highway= cycleway
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
### ATG recommended tagging for the ACT Community Path
frequency of tagging in OSM dataset: RARE
(but leave off the segregated=no and you get more)
overpass-turbo link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MUc
tags:
- highway=path
- bicycle=designated
- foot=designated
- segregated=no
## QUESTION
What should we do about this?
I welcome your comments
Keywords: Australia, ACT, ATG, ID editor, presets, paths, root cause analysis
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
