I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's more difficult than I'd assumed.
The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations, but I believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any case, it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario. On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux <martin.chalif...@icloud.com> wrote: > When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are > then incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The > route is not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn > directions eventually. > > What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so > inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or > encouraged ? Makes no sense to me. > > On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey <j3tra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're > seeing are the *implied* values (specifically, highway=footway implies > motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll > down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason > sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal > jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take > legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for > bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=* > has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an > arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal, > provincial, regional, or city laws). > > Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking > advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most > sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know > the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine > doesn't. > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca < > talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default >> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag >> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added >> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are >> talking routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street. >> >> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on >> a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short >> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be >> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested >> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this. >> >> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage >> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default >> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate >> region differences in default values without needing to manually tag >> millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the >> people developing the routing engines. >> >> Nate Wessel, PhD >> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd >> NateWessel.com <https://www.natewessel.com/> >> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote: >> >> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa. In Ottawa footpaths that >> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation >> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans >> bicycles on sidewalks. Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted >> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it >> might even be NCC which is federal of course. >> >> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief >> Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force >> boundaries as a letter of interpretation. It might be nice for Ottawa to >> do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, >> RCMP and of course the PPS. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM: >> >> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being >> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of >> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. >> >> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal >> to bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside >> the point. >> >> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, < >> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks >>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are >>> starting to do in the Montreal region. >>> >>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without >>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to >>> this page: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions >>> >>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no >>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which >>> is illegal in most part of Canada. >>> >>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or >>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-ca mailing list >>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing >> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing >> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
