Sebastian
Yes, 3b and 3c are actually signposted. They were intended as
hypothetical examples. I asked the question of Ben to get a better
undersranding of what he thought rather than to support any particular
argument. I should have explained this in more detail and apologise
for any confusion.
Re the suggestion of bicycle=undefined, I prefer just highway=path
where theres no signage.
Tony
The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or
proximity to residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no
bearing on the allowed permissions of that way. Assume NSW is
similar in their approach and relies on sign posts being present to
confirm permissions.
If you track a little further west along that street level imagery
where it crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed
posted as being a shared way.
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist
are permitted.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275&lng=145.16241388889&z=16.86798684701922&pKey=1933421956805153&x=0.47345176124885663&y=0.627570043705694&zoom=0&focus=photo
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275&lng=145.16241388889&z=16.86798684701922&pKey=1933421956805153&x=0.47345176124885663&y=0.627570043705694&zoom=0&focus=photo>
Iâve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path,
does that mean that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?
I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe
cyclists are permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as
stated under the law.
For the purposes of this conversation I think that
bicycle=âundefined/not specifiedâ is a better option that
bicycle=no where no signage is present as suggested by Graeme.
Thoughts ?
regards,
Sebastian
On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Hi Sebastian Azagra,
Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote
"I continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I
second that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I
am very appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.
I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme
Fitzpatrick, Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my
position. Only Ben Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he
writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a
shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".
Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out
your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for
you to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes
of this discussion.
1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient
evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?
3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.896764706666&lng=145.28943507&z=17&pKey=428476962255750&focus=photo
3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel
with a freeway or arterial road:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.99755833333299&lng=145.16624444444005&z=17&pKey=469416987632807&focus=photo
3c) A path not associated with a road:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055&lng=145.32763449&z=17&pKey=494613405004623&focus=photo
Thanks
Tony
_____________________________________________________
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
