Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Phil Wyatt]

There are also specialised open Cycle maps with their own renders of useful 
facilities for cyclists

 

https://www.opencyclemap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193

https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/

 

https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=15/-38.0694/145.1391/cyclosm

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 2:37 PM
To: Sebastian Azagra Flores 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to others 
there's a clear difference. 

Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for 
shared paths.

 

As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review 
the tags for permissions. "

This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim is 
to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, and 
following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. 

 

Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's 
problem.

People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

 

OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193

CycleOSM:   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
 =Y 
(Bicycle routes emphasised)

Cycle Map:   https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
 =C  
(Bicycle routes emphasised)

Transport Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 
 =T 
(Public transport emphasised)

 

Cheers,

 

Adam

 

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores mailto:s.aza...@me.com> > wrote:

Hi Adam

 

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 

 

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed 
as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

 

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below

or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

 

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags 
for permissions. 

regards,

 

Sebastian 





On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Hi Kim,

highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.

bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
here.

 

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be

highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

 

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)

either

highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)

or

highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, 
but it's a mild preference)

 

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

 

Adam

 

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we 
reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently 
these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways 
in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria 
and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with 
def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.

On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all 
advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the 
record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where 
signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where Sebastian / 
HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. 
Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed 
that 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue dotted 
lines for a path. 
If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes are allowed 
by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then you would need to see 
the tags associated with it to know the permissions. 
Hope that makes sense. 


> On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to 
> others there's a clear difference. 
> Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for 
> shared paths.
> 
> As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review 
> the tags for permissions. "
> This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim 
> is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, 
> and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. 
> 
> Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's 
> problem.
> People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.
> 
> OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
> CycleOSM:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=Y (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Cycle Map:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=C  (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Transport Map: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=T (Public 
> transport emphasised)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores  wrote:
>> Hi Adam
>> 
>> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 
>> 
>> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used 
>> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>> 
>> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
>> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
>> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>> 
>> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the 
>> tags for permissions. 
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Sebastian 
>> 
 On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> Hi Kim,
>>> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
>>> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
>>> highway=footway.
>>> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
>>> discussing here.
>>> 
>>> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
>>> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
>>> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>>> 
>>> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
>>> either
>>> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
>>> or
>>> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
>>> one, but it's a mild preference)
>>> 
>>> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
 On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
  wrote:
 Hi Andrew and list,
 
 How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
 or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
 consensus we reach on this list?
 
 We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
 duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
 Andrew's email below).
 
 We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
 various highway= values at 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
 Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
 
 highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
 highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
 bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
 highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up 
 by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
 Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
 other states?
 These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
 with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
 
 On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can 
> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed 
> out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but 
> Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've 
> actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to
others there's a clear difference. 
Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for
shared paths.

As for *"Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to
review the tags for permissions. "*
This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim
is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data,
and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible.

Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone
else's problem.
People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.

*OSM default*: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
*CycleOSM*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=Y *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Cycle Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=C  *(Bicycle
routes emphasised)*
*Transport Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193=T *(Public
transport emphasised)*

Cheers,

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores 
wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria.
>
> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used
> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>
> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags
> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>
> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the
> tags for permissions.
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
> discussing here.
>
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's
> a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
> one, but it's a mild preference)
>
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>>
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
>> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
>> consensus we reach on this list?
>>
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
>> email below).
>>
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
>> various highway= values at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>>
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
>> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>>
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten,
>> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal
>> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can
>> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out
>> cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary
>> shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually
>> surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation has change recently
>> (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then
>> we should proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes
>> against the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in
>> these errors.
>>
>> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
>> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
>> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing 
>> 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Adam

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed 
as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags 
for permissions. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
> here.
> 
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
> 
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
> one, but it's a mild preference)
> 
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>> 
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
>> does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus 
>> we reach on this list?
>> 
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
>> email below).
>> 
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
>> highway= values at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>>  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>> 
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
>> state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>> 
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim 
>>> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath 
>>> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be 
>>> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases 
>>> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows 
>>> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in 
>>> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be 
>>> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should 
>>> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the 
>>> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>>> 
>>> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
>>> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
>>> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[osm.talk-au]

If there is a sign, then it’s =designated, not =yes

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 09:24
To: Kim Oldfield ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

 

Hi Kim,

highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.

bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
here.

 

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be

highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

 

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)

either

highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)

or

highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, 
but it's a mild preference)

 

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

 

Adam

 

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus we 
reach on this list?

We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
email below).

We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." Currently 
these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:

highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about bridleways 
in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In Victoria 
and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations with 
def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.

On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all 
advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the 
record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where 
signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where Sebastian / 
HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. 
Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed 
that the situation has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, 
though I think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk 
changes have brought in these errors.

 

Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
work through and revert these changes you've made?

 

___
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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi, For shared paths, agree with Andrew that the tags should be bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. There’s a legacy tag issue in Victoria where many shared paths are still tagged as highway=cycleway only, which is slowly being fixed. Philip From: Andrew HarveySent: Monday, 4 October 2021 8:49 PMTo: Sebastian Azagra FloresCc: Philip Mallis; OSM Australian Talk ListSubject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au  wrote:The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ? From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged as bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. Most are highway=cycleway but this is more just by convention, and a bit of bias from cyclists, highway=footway or highway=path are equally okay in my opinion. Never heard of footpath=yes before, it's undocumented and has practically no use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footpath. What do you use footpath=yes to mean? 

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

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Ben Kelley]

Thanks all. Perfect!

I just found one that we could see from the water (i.e. it seems like
there's a boat ramp over there somewhere) but we couldn't find on land.

 - Ben.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 10:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Oops, it didn't show automatically, so click on the "Run" button!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Adam beat me to it, but here you go: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bKw
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:01, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>> For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/
>>>
>>> On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will
>>> embed a simple query for the tag key-value.
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
>>>
>>> The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
>>> overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
>>> several years)
>>> Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if
>>> too slow.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>>>
 In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
 that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
 have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
 about).

 How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
 "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
 for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.

 Is there some other way to search for particular features?

  - Ben.

 --
 Ben Kelley
 ben.kel...@gmail.com
 https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
 This message was sent on my Atari 400
 ___
 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
>>>
>>

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is
highway=footway.
bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're
discussing here.

I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a
sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this
one, but it's a mild preference)

This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew and list,
>
> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process,
> or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any
> consensus we reach on this list?
>
> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which
> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's
> email below).
>
> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for
> various highway= values at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)."
> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>
> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up
> by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In
> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the
> other states?
> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations
> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>
> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>
> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Oops, it didn't show automatically, so click on the "Run" button!

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Adam beat me to it, but here you go: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bKw
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:01, Adam Horan  wrote:
>
>> For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/
>>
>> On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will
>> embed a simple query for the tag key-value.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
>>
>> The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
>> overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
>> several years)
>> Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if
>> too slow.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>>
>>> In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
>>> that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
>>> have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
>>> about).
>>>
>>> How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
>>> "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
>>> for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.
>>>
>>> Is there some other way to search for particular features?
>>>
>>>  - Ben.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ben Kelley
>>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Adam beat me to it, but here you go: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bKw

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:01, Adam Horan  wrote:

> For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/
>
> On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will
> embed a simple query for the tag key-value.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
>
> The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
> overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
> several years)
> Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if
> too slow.
>
> Adam
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>> In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
>> that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
>> have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
>> about).
>>
>> How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
>> "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
>> for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.
>>
>> Is there some other way to search for particular features?
>>
>>  - Ben.
>>
>> --
>> Ben Kelley
>> ben.kel...@gmail.com
>> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
>> This message was sent on my Atari 400
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Adam Horan]

For super powered searching you need https://overpass-turbo.eu/

On the bottom right of the wiki page is a link to overpass which will embed
a simple query for the tag key-value.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway

The query can be modified to search a wider area, but unfortunately
overpass queries are not super simple (and I say this as a programmer of
several years)
Searching across a very large area will be slow, or might be stopped if too
slow.

Adam

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 09:47, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps
> that Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't
> have. Of those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know
> about).
>
> How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
> "slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
> for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.
>
> Is there some other way to search for particular features?
>
>  - Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kel...@gmail.com
> https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
> This message was sent on my Atari 400
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 22:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.

Either do I, but these could possibly be left as unspecified, because it
would / may depend on how each one is signed?

>  Is Queensland bicycle=yes?

Yes:
*In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath
unless prohibited by a ‘NO BICYCLES’ sign. You must give way to pedestrians
and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath
users*

but:
*You cannot ride on a road or footpath where bicycle signs or road markings
specifically ban bicycles*

&
*You must keep left and give way to pedestrians on footpaths and shared use
paths*

https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/maryborough/files/2013/03/Queensland_road_rules_cyclists_brochure.pdf

Thanks

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

[talk-au] Searching for tags?

[Ben Kelley]

In our search for boat ramps around here we found that there are heaps that
Google doesn't know about. We found 3 yesterday that Google didn't have. Of
those OSM had 2 of 3 (and I found a 4th in OSM I didn't know about).

How can you search for a specific feature in OSM? If you search for
"slipway" you only find things with "slipway" in the name. You can't search
for "leisure=slipway" on the main map either.

Is there some other way to search for particular features?

 - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
consensus we reach on this list?


We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
Andrew's email below).


We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
various highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:


highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken 
up by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. 
In Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about 
the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.


On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no 
can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has 
pointed out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no 
but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this 
you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation 
has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I 
think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the 
bulk changes have brought in these errors.


Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be 
willing to work through and revert these changes you've made?


___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim
all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath
(for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be
tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases
where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows
bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in
person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be
proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should
proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the
community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.

Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to
work through and revert these changes you've made?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared
> path?
> Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ?
>

>From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged as
bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. Most are
highway=cycleway but this is more just by convention, and a bit of bias
from cyclists, highway=footway or highway=path are equally okay in my
opinion.

Never heard of footpath=yes before, it's undocumented and has practically
no use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footpath. What do you use
footpath=yes to mean?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

ot;bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
> > 
> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it 
> > sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the 
> > definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated 
> > is actually:
> > 
> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a 
> > government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"
> > 
> > It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or 
> > Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of 
> > transport so you should go that way".
> > 
> > An example I've added myself is at 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near 
> > Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across 
> > the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that 
> > view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout 
> > where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other 
> > carriageway of the road.
> > 
> > In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a "highway=path" 
> > should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic, and 
> > bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be treated like a 
> > highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean "legal access rules 
> > for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you should consult local 
> > signage and local laws".
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>  
>  
>  
> --
>  
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:16:34 +1100
> From: Philip Mallis 
> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID: <1b285132-2b85-44be-9a41-627a974c8...@hxcore.ol>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>  
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211004/1a04f427/attachment-0001.htm>
>  
> --
>  
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 02:05:49 +0100
> From: Andy Townsend 
> To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> Cc: OSM-Au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID: <2b591862-2793-76ef-72f8-0df99357c...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>  
>  
> On 03/10/2021 22:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
> > changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
> > Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
> > according to signs or specific local laws".
>  
> Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> --
>  
> Subject: Digest Footer
>  
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>  
>  
> --
>  
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
> ***
>  
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Adam Horan]

/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage
> & local laws would then apply?
>
> >
>
> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
>
> >
>
> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it
> sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the
> definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> is actually:
>
> >
>
> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a
> government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"
>
> >
>
> > It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y
> or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode
> of transport so you should go that way".
>
> >
>
> > An example I've added myself is at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near
> Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across
> the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that
> view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout
> where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other
> carriageway of the road.
>
> >
>
> > In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a
> "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic,
> and bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be treated like a
> highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean "legal access rules
> for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you should consult local
> signage and local laws".
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ___
>
> > Talk-au mailing list
>
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 2
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:16:34 +1100
>
> From: Philip Mallis 
>
> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Message-ID: <1b285132-2b85-44be-9a41-627a974c8...@hxcore.ol>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211004/1a04f427/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Message: 3
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 02:05:49 +0100
>
> From: Andy Townsend 
>
> To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>
> Cc: OSM-Au 
>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Message-ID: <2b591862-2793-76ef-72f8-0df99357c...@gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
>
>
> On 03/10/2021 22:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
>
> > changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
>
> > Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
>
> > according to signs or specific local laws".
>
>
>
> Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-au mailing list
>
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>
> ***
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Matthew Seale]

These are the results of some Mapilliary browsing cycleways/shared paths
adjacent to primary roads in and around Greater Dandenong where Sebastian /
HighRouleur  removed bicycle access (converted to footpath or bicycle=no).
Each of these has visible shared cycling path signs on Mapilliary.



I entered changeset comments earlier on Hallam Road way 31659577 below
after a tag change yesterday.

I have not put all of these against the remainder of his changesets.



Regards

Matthew



Hallam Road from Pound Rd to Ormond Rd

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736809442/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=312660870443397

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=895599964330562

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=205753421362506

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=508544383674853



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31659577/history (already commented on
changeset 11203682)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=144954007603964

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2031215400361053

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=851076202144993

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=497400694795407

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=566530107645541

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656





Cranbourne Rd from Centre Rd to Greaves Rd

Southbound

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43974586/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1125882161173090

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4044452288977189 (shared path signage
just visible)



Greaves Rd from The Avenue to Cranbourne Road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51792707/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=957912521623904

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=734196640529461

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=732457320763410



Ernst Wanke Rd from Parkhill Drive to Narre Warren Rd North

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74268817/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=585890135726372

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1631883537013186



Narre Warrern North Rd from Monash Freeway to Princes Hwy southbound

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114377605/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2655642424738245

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=201983328212269

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=609180500479076 (maybe – blurred/angled
view of shared path sign)



Thompsons Road – Merinda Park railway bridge LXRP

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812851/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659812850/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320636187/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251657/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687251655/history



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLHIolV0d08 (LXRP Youtube overview from the
OMS source tag on several of those cyclepaths)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=314224830110424

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=297352711968846

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=504431641001656

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=198251272127970



Thomspons Rd from South Gippsland Hwy to Narre Warren Rd

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/839517705/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=490841682271128

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=500638321126014



Hammond Rd from Dandenong Bypass to Webster St

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/807140065/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=196724275601939

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2871075936555149

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=146143874152929

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 7:20 PM Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental
> issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.
> In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software
> will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the
> majority of instances, there aren’t any issues.
>
> In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in
> correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to
> allow bicycles but to no avail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> This really is all already covered under:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability
>
> and
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
> er
>
> (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
> Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
>
> Hi all
>
> I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
> never be sure what the law is.
>
> Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call
> them
> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
> (Maybe better called the ground truth