Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 10:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Graeme - I hope your only using google maps as an example here and not as
> your source for mapping.
>

Certainly! (& I usually include that disclaimer when I link to imagery!)

Unfortunately, I find GM is the best readily available source of street
level imagery. I see that there may be changes coming to Mapillary now that
Facebook have bought them, which "may" make it more usable, but we'll just
have to wait & see?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Warin]

Graeme - I hope your only using google maps as an example here and not 
as your source for mapping. (I mention this here so others don't start 
using google to map into OSM)


Andrew/Luke
I too would question the legal implication of the sign. As a cyclist if 
traffic was 'light' (as in no traffic) I would continue using the road - 
why .. because the traffic lights proitorise vehicle of pedestrians 
leading to less delays by using the road rather than the footpath. When 
traffic is not 'light' I would prefer the footpath for my safety.


On 20/6/20 8:55 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Sorry, something went wrong there?

Second photo was supposed to be: 
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5363504,153.5387022,3a,16.3y,166.14h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8k6sIMX0JXgsu_mhFc29Pg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


& the crossing: 
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5366306,153.5385725,3a,75y,143.74h,54.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJk_cDNVsoMaKLtY5FlWlyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 08:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


There are a number of similar signs to these on the M1 in NNSW,
this particular one near Brunswick Heads.


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

First:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,15y,154.68h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Second:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Crossing:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I don't know whether they are legally enforceable to say that all
cyclists "must" cross here, or if it's just a suggestion /
recommendation for your own safety?

I've mapped it as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 just
as a test, but I don't think it's a perfect solution?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 00:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:




Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com
:


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via
Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Can you consider using more specific surface? Like
surface=asphalt?


The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will
likely cover mulitple surface types, usually asphalt on
the road, concrete for the gutter, and paving_stones or
concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is
better when it's not clearly any single surface type.

I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.



Unless it is a continuous surface and I can be bothered I would tag the 
actual surface.


But with time constraints I normally just tag surface=paved/unpaved as 
those are the two I am interested in.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sorry, something went wrong there?

Second photo was supposed to be:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5363504,153.5387022,3a,16.3y,166.14h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8k6sIMX0JXgsu_mhFc29Pg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

& the crossing:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5366306,153.5385725,3a,75y,143.74h,54.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJk_cDNVsoMaKLtY5FlWlyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 08:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> There are a number of similar signs to these on the M1 in NNSW, this
> particular one near Brunswick Heads.
>
>
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> First:
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,15y,154.68h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> Second:
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> Crossing:
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>
> I don't know whether they are legally enforceable to say that all cyclists
> "must" cross here, or if it's just a suggestion / recommendation for your
> own safety?
>
> I've mapped it as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 just as a
> test, but I don't think it's a perfect solution?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 00:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?
>>
>>
>> The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover
>> mulitple surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the
>> gutter, and paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved
>> I'd say is better when it's not clearly any single surface type.
>>
>> I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

There are a number of similar signs to these on the M1 in NNSW, this
particular one near Brunswick Heads.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

First:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,15y,154.68h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Second:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Crossing:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.5357775,153.5389296,3a,57.4y,164.26h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazs46cEWdkGbHMJ5jZM-zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I don't know whether they are legally enforceable to say that all cyclists
"must" cross here, or if it's just a suggestion / recommendation for your
own safety?

I've mapped it as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 just as a
test, but I don't think it's a perfect solution?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 00:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?
>
>
> The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover
> mulitple surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the
> gutter, and paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved
> I'd say is better when it's not clearly any single surface type.
>
> I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?
>>
>
> The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover mulitple 
> surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the gutter, and 
> paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is 
> better when it's not clearly any single surface type.
>
I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:30, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Can you point to any of your research that says these are legally
> enforceable? I always thought these were advisory, or at least guidance for
> those using the cyclelane, if you're cycling in the traffic lane does that
> still apply? A motorway or tunnel which is signposted no bicycles is
> clearly bicycle=no but I think we should see further if this is really
> bicycle=no or just bicycle:advisory=no. I'm very keen to find out.
>

For NSW at least I couldn't find anything which mentions these signs, only:

"The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane
designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must
ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so."
"The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a length of road or footpath to
which a no bicycles sign, or a no bicycles road marking, applies."

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758/part15/rule247
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758/part15/rule252
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 22:59, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> G'day talk-au,
>
> Increasingly at major intersections, there has been an effort to improve
> cyclist safety, which has led to some cycle lanes terminating before the
> intersection and providing a ramp for cyclists to join a shared path and
> use push button traffic lights to cross separated from the carriageway. As
> such, there has been an increasing use of "All Bicycles" signage, which
> from my research is legally enforceable.
>
> Some examples:
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/dQy7A06SHDfBKcN7xBKRFA (cycle lane
> terminates before the intersection)
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2alrT9RBIzuY7JiFrnq6lQ (cycle lane
> terminates due to narrow bridge, so cyclists must use the adjacent shared
> path)
>
> My tagging mechanism for the connection between the roadway and the
> cycleway/shared path (via the flush ramp) has been
>
> highway=cycleway
> oneway=yes
> surface=paved
>
> Possibly not the best solution, but the best that I have come up with so
> far.
>
> As for the road after the ramp, I generally tag it with cycleway=no since
> the infrastructure disappears. However in addition to the
> aforementioned tagging scheme, I'm curious to whether the road beyond
> should be tagged with bicycle=no up until the next intersection. For
> instance, the first example would be tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until
> Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly prohibited, the logical
> result from requiring cyclists to leave the carriageway is that they aren't
> allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to replicate that properly in
> OSM so that routers can understand.
>

Can you point to any of your research that says these are legally
enforceable? I always thought these were advisory, or at least guidance for
those using the cyclelane, if you're cycling in the traffic lane does that
still apply? A motorway or tunnel which is signposted no bicycles is
clearly bicycle=no but I think we should see further if this is really
bicycle=no or just bicycle:advisory=no. I'm very keen to find out.

+1 for cycleway=no.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?
>

The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover mulitple
surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the gutter, and
paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is
better when it's not clearly any single surface type.


> I'm curious to whether the road beyond should be tagged with bicycle=no up
> until the next intersection. For instance, the first example would be
> tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not
> explicitly prohibited, the logical result from requiring cyclists to leave
> the carriageway is that they aren't allowed on the road, and I'm wondering
> how to replicate that properly in OSM so that routers can understand.
>
> Is there any case where cyclist would be allowed to use the road (for
> example - cycling is some
> specific direction requires using road as bikeway is not going there), but
> generally
> sidepath should be used whenever possible?
>
> In such case bicycle=use_sidepath would be better match.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath
>

The wiki says that's for when it's compulsory to use the shared
path/cycleway but the road is not signposted as no bicycles. So that
certainly may apply here. I guess it depends what the sign means.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 19, 2020, 14:58 by suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com:

> highway=cycleway
> oneway=yes
> surface=paved
>
Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?

>  I'm curious to whether the road beyond should be tagged with bicycle=no up 
> until the next intersection. For instance, the first example would be tagged 
> bicycle=no from the ramp until Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly 
> prohibited, the logical result from requiring cyclists to leave the 
> carriageway is that they aren't allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to 
> replicate that properly in OSM so that routers can understand.
>
Is there any case where cyclist would be allowed to use the road (for example - 
cycling is some
specific direction requires using road as bikeway is not going there), but 
generally
sidepath should be used whenever possible?

In such case bicycle=use_sidepath would be better match.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath

If it is impossible for cyclist to legally enter road in any way then 
bicycle=no is correct.

Note that in some cases bicycle:forward / bicycle:backward may be needed
(if situation differs depending on a direction).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Luke Stewart]

G'day talk-au,

Increasingly at major intersections, there has been an effort to improve
cyclist safety, which has led to some cycle lanes terminating before the
intersection and providing a ramp for cyclists to join a shared path and
use push button traffic lights to cross separated from the carriageway. As
such, there has been an increasing use of "All Bicycles" signage, which
from my research is legally enforceable.

Some examples:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/dQy7A06SHDfBKcN7xBKRFA (cycle lane
terminates before the intersection)

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2alrT9RBIzuY7JiFrnq6lQ (cycle lane
terminates due to narrow bridge, so cyclists must use the adjacent shared
path)

My tagging mechanism for the connection between the roadway and the
cycleway/shared path (via the flush ramp) has been

highway=cycleway
oneway=yes
surface=paved

Possibly not the best solution, but the best that I have come up with so
far.

As for the road after the ramp, I generally tag it with cycleway=no since
the infrastructure disappears. However in addition to the
aforementioned tagging scheme, I'm curious to whether the road beyond
should be tagged with bicycle=no up until the next intersection. For
instance, the first example would be tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until
Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly prohibited, the logical
result from requiring cyclists to leave the carriageway is that they aren't
allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to replicate that properly in
OSM so that routers can understand.

Interested to hear your thoughts,
Thanks,
Luke
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map

[Ewen Hill]

Top work Charles and Phil. Keeping 'em honest.


On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 5:47 PM Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> I have sent an appropriate message to the agency and the appropriate
> Government Minister and requested an update to the website and map with the
> correct attribution.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Charles Gregory 
> *Sent:* Friday, 19 June 2020 5:13 PM
> *To:* talk-au 
> *Subject:* [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The map rendering used by the Tasmanian Government in a recent
> announcement about a new prison site in Northern Tasmania looked familiar..
>
>
> https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/571540/Northern-Regional-Prison-map.pdf
>
>
>
> Compared to OSM, there are some features missing, some other features are
> rendered differently.  It could well be a different site/source with
> similar rendering:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-41.5123/146.7475
>
>
>
> (Screenshots of both: https://imgur.com/a/7EE2GXV)
>
>
>
> Just sharing for interest's sake - not sure if it is worth following up
> on, or making a big deal about?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map

[Phil Wyatt]

I have sent an appropriate message to the agency and the appropriate Government 
Minister and requested an update to the website and map with the correct 
attribution.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Charles Gregory  
Sent: Friday, 19 June 2020 5:13 PM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map

 

Hi all,

 

The map rendering used by the Tasmanian Government in a recent announcement 
about a new prison site in Northern Tasmania looked familiar..

https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/571540/Northern-Regional-Prison-map.pdf

 

Compared to OSM, there are some features missing, some other features are 
rendered differently.  It could well be a different site/source with similar 
rendering:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-41.5123/146.7475  

 

(Screenshots of both: https://imgur.com/a/7EE2GXV)

 

Just sharing for interest's sake - not sure if it is worth following up on, or 
making a big deal about?

 

Regards,

Charles

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Uncredited use of OSM map

[Phil Wyatt]

I will do some follow up on this map, given I am a Taswegian!


Cheers - Phil, 
On the road with his iPad 

> On 19 Jun 2020, at 5:14 pm, Charles Gregory  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The map rendering used by the Tasmanian Government in a recent announcement 
> about a new prison site in Northern Tasmania looked familiar..
> https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/571540/Northern-Regional-Prison-map.pdf
> 
> Compared to OSM, there are some features missing, some other features are 
> rendered differently.  It could well be a different site/source with similar 
> rendering:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-41.5123/146.7475  
> 
> (Screenshots of both: https://imgur.com/a/7EE2GXV)
> 
> Just sharing for interest's sake - not sure if it is worth following up on, 
> or making a big deal about?
> 
> Regards,
> Charles
> ___
> 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] Uncredited use of OSM map

[Charles Gregory]

Hi all,

The map rendering used by the Tasmanian Government in a recent announcement
about a new prison site in Northern Tasmania looked familiar..
https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/571540/Northern-Regional-Prison-map.pdf

Compared to OSM, there are some features missing, some other features are
rendered differently.  It could well be a different site/source with
similar rendering:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-41.5123/146.7475

(Screenshots of both: https://imgur.com/a/7EE2GXV)

Just sharing for interest's sake - not sure if it is worth following up on,
or making a big deal about?

Regards,
Charles
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au