There are also specialised open Cycle maps with their own renders of useful facilities for cyclists
https://www.opencyclemap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/ https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=15/-38.0694/145.1391/cyclosm Cheers - Phil From: Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 2:37 PM To: Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com> Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to others there's a clear difference. 😊 Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for shared paths. As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags for permissions. " This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's problem. People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg. OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 CycleOSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y> &layers=Y (Bicycle routes emphasised) Cycle Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C> &layers=C (Bicycle routes emphasised) Transport Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T> &layers=T (Public transport emphasised) Cheers, Adam On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com <mailto:s.aza...@me.com> > wrote: Hi Adam Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead? In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags highway=footway + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ? Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags for permissions. regards, Sebastian On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com <mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:  Hi Kim, highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is highway=footway. bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing here. I'd prefer a normal footpath to be highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path) either highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one) or highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, but it's a mild preference) This is mostly with a VIC perspective. Adam On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: Hi Andrew and list, How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we reach on this list? We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's email below). We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various highway= values at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except: highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable. highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this. highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria and NSW: bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states? These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines. On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors. Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to work through and revert these changes you've made? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
