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
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
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
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 +
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
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
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!
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 -
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
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
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
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 /
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
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
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
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
quot;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 mai
ighway=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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
