Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits
Hi all I flagged the list of changes below that Sebastian may still dispute, mostly I have reverted his changes without reaching an agreement. Changeset 120382941 MacRobertson bridge is definitely disputed by him. Can I add changeset/120498123, it is early days on this one and Sebastian and I may still come to an agreement. Thanks Tony 120963296 what is the information source? 120621671 changes as no signs present but signage exists 120382941 MacRobertson bridge approach - changes as no signs present 120382605 changes as no signs present - Survey Paddock Trail 120140719 changes as no signs present but signage exists 119224223 changes as no signs present but signage exists 119224055 question but no answer 2 April 2022 119223528 changes as no signs present but signage exists ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits
Hi Highrouleur, Re Changeset 120382605, I am not comfortable that this is not a shared path. This route is used by many families and sports people using the route to get to a number of sporting grounds and is called "Survey Paddock Trail" rather than a path - The signage clearly shows that it is intended to be part of the cycling/walking network, linking to the CCT. Can I ask for this to be reverted please. See trailhead sign: https://www.flickr.com/photos/philipmallis/46268682255 Ewen On Sun, 15 May 2022 at 13:59, wrote: > Hi Sebastian and list > > Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle > signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove > bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to > cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor. > > I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So > far I have two, reproduced below: > > _ > This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not > answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232, > Sebastian's answer below > > Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it > doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map > indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the > ground with what form of transport is permitted. > _ > changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a > footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were > allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no > signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar > with them. > > I know this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your > bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I > signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the > changes. Sebastian's reply below: > > The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with > a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not > permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that > bikes are permitted. > > The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not > part of the Main Yarra Trail. > > Please revert the change. > __ > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits
Hi Kim Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing"? Does this apply to just sidewalks (US sidewalk, UK pavement, AU footpath) or all paths including paths through parkland, beside freeways, rivers and railway lines? Thanks Tony bikes. Responses below. On 15/5/22 13:56, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Sebastian and list Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor. I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So far I have two, reproduced below: _ This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232, Sebastian's answer below Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the ground with what form of transport is permitted. Strava heatmap by itself is not a reason to map a path. Strava heatmap is useful to align a known path to an accurate location based on lots of Strava users' GPS traces. Mapping a path over a grass area with surface=grass is reasonable, and often the best way of indicating in OSM that it is possible to navigate between nearby ways. When using OSM for navigation it is often unclear if you can travel directly between 2 close ways - there may be a fence or house in the way (which you can't walk through), or it may be an unrestricted grass area which can easily be walked across. Adding a grass way makes it obvious that you can travel directly between the points, while surface=grass and informal=yes indicates that there is not a high quality path. _ changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar with them. If the path is signposted as "cyclists dismount" then bicycle=designated is wrong. bicycle=dismount is the most appropriate tag, though bicycle=no is often used interchangeably with bicycle=dismount. While many cyclists would consider "Cyclists dismount" to be inappropriate, it is not OSM's role re-interpret what is appropriate, rather, it is to document what is legally allowed. As cycling on footpaths is not generally allowed in Victoria, using highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing bikes. IMHO adding foot= and bicycle= tags is usually a waste of effort as in Victoria highway=footway implies foot=yes and bicycle=no, while highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Adding these tags can make things worse as it is unclear if children under 13 can ride on a path tagged with bicycle=no. Did the person who added the tag do it because all cyclists are banned, or were they just duplicating the implied cyclists limitations for footpaths while ignoring the effect the age of the cyclist has on what is allowed? I know this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the changes. Sebastian's reply below: The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that bikes are permitted.  The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not part of the Main Yarra Trail. Please revert the change. __ ___ 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 _ 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
Re: [talk-au] Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level definitions
Good morning. This change to all localities in Australia has been executed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121025161 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121025214 If you have any concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Dian On 2022-05-09 14:11, Dian Ågesson wrote: Hey all, Following the mailing list discussion last month (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-April/016101.html), the Australian admin_levels have been updated in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values. Admin_level=7 was removed, and suburbs/localities have been adjusted to level 9, to better align with other countries and improve the prominence in rendering. I would like to propose performing a bulk edit to change the admin_level of these boundaries to ease the transition. This would involve: * using JOSM to retrieve all relations in Australia with boundary=administrative and admin_level=10 * high-level confirmation that the locality is correct (ie, consistent with the version uploaded by the PSMA import) * Changing admin_level to 9 Due to the size of the data being queried, this might be accomplished with a changeset for each state/territory. Are there any comments, feedback or objections about this proposed bulk edit? If there aren't any objections, I'll look to make the change this weekend. Dian ___ 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] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits
Responses below. On 15/5/22 13:56, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Sebastian and list Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor. I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So far I have two, reproduced below: _ This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232, Sebastian's answer below Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the ground with what form of transport is permitted. Strava heatmap by itself is not a reason to map a path. Strava heatmap is useful to align a known path to an accurate location based on lots of Strava users' GPS traces. Mapping a path over a grass area with surface=grass is reasonable, and often the best way of indicating in OSM that it is possible to navigate between nearby ways. When using OSM for navigation it is often unclear if you can travel directly between 2 close ways - there may be a fence or house in the way (which you can't walk through), or it may be an unrestricted grass area which can easily be walked across. Adding a grass way makes it obvious that you can travel directly between the points, while surface=grass and informal=yes indicates that there is not a high quality path. _ changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar with them. If the path is signposted as "cyclists dismount" then bicycle=designated is wrong. bicycle=dismount is the most appropriate tag, though bicycle=no is often used interchangeably with bicycle=dismount. While many cyclists would consider "Cyclists dismount" to be inappropriate, it is not OSM's role re-interpret what is appropriate, rather, it is to document what is legally allowed. As cycling on footpaths is not generally allowed in Victoria, using highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing bikes. IMHO adding foot= and bicycle= tags is usually a waste of effort as in Victoria highway=footway implies foot=yes and bicycle=no, while highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Adding these tags can make things worse as it is unclear if children under 13 can ride on a path tagged with bicycle=no. Did the person who added the tag do it because all cyclists are banned, or were they just duplicating the implied cyclists limitations for footpaths while ignoring the effect the age of the cyclist has on what is allowed? I know this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the changes. Sebastian's reply below: The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that bikes are permitted. The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not part of the Main Yarra Trail. Please revert the change. __ ___ 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] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits
Hi all I was hoping that Sebastian would post to this list but so far, no. The following may still be disputed by Sebastian. 120963296 what is the information source? 120621671 changes as no signs present but signage exists 120382941 MacRobertson bridge approach - changes as no signs present 120382605 changes as no signs present - Survey Paddock Trail 120140719 changes as no signs present but signage exists 119224223 changes as no signs present but signage exists 119224055 question but no answer 2 April 2022 119223528 changes as no signs present but signage exists That is, two requests for more information, four changes as no signs exist but signage exists and two changes as no signs exist. Re Changeset: 115626232. I suspect Bob42nd may not be happy with the answer, I would not be. Sebastian originally deleted the track because it did not exist. He is now arguing that access on it is not permitted. I'll leave Bob42nd to take this forward if he wishes. Personally I am no great fan of informal tracks. Re 120382941 MacRobertson bridge Yarra Boulevard approach - changes as there are no signs present permitting bicycles. There is no dispute that cyclists must dismount on the MacRobertson Bridge. Yes, there is a no bike symbol on the ground. This refers to the bridge ahead, not the path behind. The MacRobertson bridge and its approaches are part of the Yarra Trail Relation: Yarra Trail (20138) Sebastian, you ask me "Please revert the change." yes I will do this and with sincere apologies if the consensus here finds me wrong. Tony Hi Sebastian and list Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor. I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So far I have two, reproduced below: _ This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232, Sebastian's answer below Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the ground with what form of transport is permitted. _ changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar with them. I know this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the changes. Sebastian's reply below: The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that bikes are permitted. The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not part of the Main Yarra Trail. Please revert the change. __ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ 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
