On 20/9/21 6:29 pm, Karl Cheng wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>> wrote:
Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:
Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people
to walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)
official signs I linked, a footpath.
It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as
“sidewalk” in OSM.
e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png
<https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png>
In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there
aren’t in this case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.
From what I understand, 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 11-13 of the Road Rules for details.
The old NSW road rules said
"Any place open to, or used by, the public" ..
So council and supermarket carparks were covered, as were some group of
people (the public) using private property - with or without permission...
I have no idea what the present ones say .. but I'd imagine something
similar will be there. And I think other jurisdictions will have similar
claims.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
