On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 17:38, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> 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
