Mike I generally agree with your logic expect that for your second point the Victorian law Barrs riding on footpaths and the like unless it specifically signed. In which case the any footpath, path etc would have bicycle=no unless specific signage is present to indicate that cycling is permitted.
I think the query needed to be phrased specifically around victorian rules and regulations. On your third point, mapping needs to consider what is the “lawful” permission of the way. Just because you could use a way via a specific mode of transport does not mean it is lawful e.g riding a bike or drive a tractor on a motorway/ freeway. regards, Sebastian > On 8 Oct 2022, at 1:33 am, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > > I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world would > be: > > 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use > bicycle=designated. I.e. "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes are > expressily permitted". > > 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw > preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian > states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In the > real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be explicitly > signed, it does not make sense. > > BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian access. It > was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when working in that area. > There is no earthly reason for removing. I think the user is basically > mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add that other types of edits by > him are completely in order and I continue to welcome him in our OSM > community. > > Mike > > >> On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: >> Hi >> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths >> to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in >> Victoria Australia. >> >> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be serious >> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my >> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing. >> >> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where bicycle=yes >> by the previous editor has been removed because there were "no signs present >> to indicated bikes are permitted" >> >> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk >> sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear >> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes >> are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence that bicycles are disallowed. >> >> Sorry to bother you all >> Tony >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
