For example: Toronto has a bylaw if you are over 14 years old, you are not allowed to ride bike ever on sidewalk, if you are 14 and under and feel unsafe on road, you are allowed
At a certain point you need to use your judgement and know local laws On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 11:37 a.m. Justin Tracey, <j3tra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
