Responses below.
On 15/5/22 13:56, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Hi Sebastian and list
Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle
signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove
bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to
cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor.
I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So
far I have two, reproduced below:
_________________________________________________________________________
This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not
answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232,
Sebastian's answer below
Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it
doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map
indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the
ground with what form of transport is permitted.
Strava heatmap by itself is not a reason to map a path. Strava heatmap
is useful to align a known path to an accurate location based on lots of
Strava users' GPS traces.
Mapping a path over a grass area with surface=grass is reasonable, and
often the best way of indicating in OSM that it is possible to navigate
between nearby ways. When using OSM for navigation it is often unclear
if you can travel directly between 2 close ways - there may be a fence
or house in the way (which you can't walk through), or it may be an
unrestricted grass area which can easily be walked across. Adding a
grass way makes it obvious that you can travel directly between the
points, while surface=grass and informal=yes indicates that there is not
a high quality path.
_________________________________________________________________________
changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a
footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were
allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no
signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar
with them.
If the path is signposted as "cyclists dismount" then bicycle=designated
is wrong. bicycle=dismount is the most appropriate tag, though
bicycle=no is often used interchangeably with bicycle=dismount.
While many cyclists would consider "Cyclists dismount" to be
inappropriate, it is not OSM's role re-interpret what is appropriate,
rather, it is to document what is legally allowed.
As cycling on footpaths is not generally allowed in Victoria, using
highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing bikes.
IMHO adding foot= and bicycle= tags is usually a waste of effort as in
Victoria highway=footway implies foot=yes and bicycle=no, while
highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Adding these tags can
make things worse as it is unclear if children under 13 can ride on a
path tagged with bicycle=no. Did the person who added the tag do it
because all cyclists are banned, or were they just duplicating the
implied cyclists limitations for footpaths while ignoring the effect the
age of the cyclist has on what is allowed?
I know this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your
bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I
signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the
changes. Sebastian's reply below:
The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with
a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not
permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that
bikes are permitted.
The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not
part of the Main Yarra Trail.
Please revert the change.
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
