On 5/10/21 2:57 pm, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au wrote:
I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue
dotted lines for a path.
Pardon. But OSM is a data base, not really a map.
The "default OSM map" is a guide as to what a map might look like to be
used by mappers to check their work in a basic way.
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.
Seeing the tags .. not really meant to be 'seen' in a text format on a
'real map'. Other than certain specific tags which might be 'seen' (such
as description=* and others).
Map makers take the OSM data to make maps (rendering them), they can
chose what and how they render.
Does that help?
On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> 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
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193>
*CycleOSM*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y>
*(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
*Cycle Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C>
*(Bicycle routes emphasised)*
*Transport Map*:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T>
*(Public transport emphasised)*
Cheers,
Adam
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com
<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 <aho...@gmail.com
<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
<talk-au@openstreetmap.org <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
<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:Â 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 <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<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
