These are the results of some Mapilliary browsing cycleways/shared paths adjacent to primary roads in and around Greater Dandenong where Sebastian / HighRouleur removed bicycle access (converted to footpath or bicycle=no). Each of these has visible shared cycling path signs on Mapilliary.
I entered changeset comments earlier on Hallam Road way 31659577 below after a tag change yesterday. I have not put all of these against the remainder of his changesets. Regards Matthew Hallam Road from Pound Rd to Ormond Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736809442/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=312660870443397 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=895599964330562 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=205753421362506 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=508544383674853 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31659577/history (already commented on changeset 11203682) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=144954007603964 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2031215400361053 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=851076202144993 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=497400694795407 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=566530107645541 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656 Cranbourne Rd from Centre Rd to Greaves Rd Southbound https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43974586/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1125882161173090 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4044452288977189 (shared path signage just visible) Greaves Rd from The Avenue to Cranbourne Road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51792707/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=957912521623904 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=734196640529461 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=732457320763410 Ernst Wanke Rd from Parkhill Drive to Narre Warren Rd North https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74268817/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=585890135726372 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1631883537013186 Narre Warrern North Rd from Monash Freeway to Princes Hwy southbound https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114377605/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2655642424738245 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=201983328212269 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=609180500479076 (maybe – blurred/angled view of shared path sign) Thompsons Road – Merinda Park railway bridge LXRP https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812851/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812850/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320636187/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251657/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251655/history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLHIolV0d08 (LXRP Youtube overview from the OMS source tag on several of those cyclepaths) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=314224830110424 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=297352711968846 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=504431641001656 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=198251272127970 Thomspons Rd from South Gippsland Hwy to Narre Warren Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/839517705/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=490841682271128 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=500638321126014 Hammond Rd from Dandenong Bypass to Webster St https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/807140065/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=196724275601939 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2871075936555149 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=146143874152929 On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 7:20 PM Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental > issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing. > In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software > will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the > majority of instances, there aren’t any issues. > > In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in > correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to > allow bicycles but to no avail. > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > > This really is all already covered under: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability > > and > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render > er > > (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router"). > > -----Original Message----- > From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <fors...@ozonline.com.au> > Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34 > To: Kim Oldfield <o...@oldfield.wattle.id.au>; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths > > Hi all > > I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will > never be sure what the law is. > > Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call > them > the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle. > (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.) > > I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian > Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from > the risk of getting a large fine. > > I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on > the > ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers. > > Not sure how we arrive at a resolution. > > Tony > > On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote: > > In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will > some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The > majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified > (not defined)which I think is fine. > The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by > cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based > on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM. > > > In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults). > The is defined in the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri > ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741 > > As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as > part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any > software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We > should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which > doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM. > > It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing. > > [*] Is that the name of the person using > osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a > name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as > domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that > I'm right. > > Regards, > Kim > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au