Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 09:28, Ben Kelley wrote:

This very much differs by state.

In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared 
path). I assume Victoria is the same.


   - Ben.



Details.

NSW law allows children (under a certain age) to bicycle on the 
footpath. Adults accompanying children are also allowed.




--
Ben Kelley
This message was sent from my Olivetti typewriter

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, 09:21 Graeme Fitzpatrick,  
wrote:



So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for
cycling!




Some 'Australian Road Rules' are incorporated into state/territory laws. 
Some are not.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Ian

I see what you are are saying but it does not appear that you are reading the 
law as it is written as people under the age of 13 are an exception to the 
rule. 

The law essentially says you cannot ride on a footpath etc, expect if you are 
under the age of 13. 
Noting that this law of exclusion applies to the majority of the population and 
only a small minority are granted permissions under a specific exemption. 

On that basis as the majority are excluded from using it any default tagging 
should follow bicycle=no



regards,

Sebastian 

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:54 pm, Ian Steer  wrote:
> 
> I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
> Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
> age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
> should be that bicycles are permitted.
> 
> My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
> bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
> or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.
> 
> Ian
> 
>> Hi
>> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths
> to
>> footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in
> Victoria
>> Australia.
>> 
>> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> serious
>> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
>> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
>> 
>> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
>> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
>> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
>> 
>> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk
> sense.
>> It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
>> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
>> are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are
> disallowed.
>> 
>> Sorry to bother you all
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Would a simple bicycle=unknown / not specified work?

Or does that not go through to the map?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Mike

I generally agree with your logic expect that for your second point the 
Victorian law Barrs riding on footpaths and the like unless it specifically 
signed. In which case the any footpath, path etc would have bicycle=no unless 
specific signage is present to indicate that cycling is permitted. 

I think the query needed to be phrased specifically around victorian rules and 
regulations. 

On your third point, mapping needs to consider what is the “lawful” permission 
of the way. Just because you could use a way via a specific mode of transport 
does not mean it is lawful e.g riding a bike or drive a tractor on a motorway/ 
freeway. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 1:33 am, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> 
> I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world would 
> be:
> 
> 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use 
> bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes are 
> expressily permitted".
> 
> 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw 
> preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian 
> states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In the 
> real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be explicitly 
> signed, it does not make sense.
> 
> BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian access. It 
> was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when working in that area. 
> There is no earthly reason for removing. I think the user is  basically 
> mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add that other types of edits by 
> him are completely in order and I continue to welcome him in our OSM 
> community.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths 
>> to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in 
>> Victoria Australia.
>> 
>> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be serious 
>> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my 
>> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
>> 
>> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where bicycle=yes 
>> by the previous editor has been removed because there were "no signs present 
>> to indicated bikes are permitted"
>> 
>> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk 
>> sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear 
>> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes 
>> are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence that bicycles are disallowed.
>> 
>> Sorry to bother you all
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Warin]

as there is a restriction OSM would use a conditional tagging .. not 
just 'bicycle=yes'.  Possibly:


access=no

foot=yes

bicycle:conditional=yes @ (max_age=13)


There is also the case that an adult can accompany a child... in NSW, 
possibly in other places too.



No I'm not tagging what should be a default value.


On 8/10/22 12:51, Ian Steer wrote:

I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
should be that bicycles are permitted.

My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.

Ian


Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths

to

footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in

Victoria

Australia.

Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be

serious

consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.

I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"

There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk

sense.

It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are

disallowed.

Sorry to bother you all
Tony






___
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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ian Steer]

I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
should be that bicycles are permitted.

My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.

Ian

> Hi
> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths
to
> footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in
Victoria
> Australia.
> 
> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
serious
> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
> 
> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
> 
> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk
sense.
> It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
> are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are
disallowed.
> 
> Sorry to bother you all
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ben Kelley]

This very much differs by state.

In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I
assume Victoria is the same.

   - Ben.

-- 
Ben Kelley
This message was sent from my Olivetti typewriter

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, 09:21 Graeme Fitzpatrick,  wrote:

>
> So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for cycling!
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Doing some looking & found this site: http://lgam.wikidot.com/footpath

Some of definitions it mentions are:

The Glossary of Austroads Terms
 defines a footpath as
a "public way reserved for the movement of pedestrians and of manually
propelled vehicles."

The Australian Road Rules 
define a footpath as "an area open to the public that is designated for, or
has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians."

Part 6A of the Austroads Guide to Road Design
 provides guidance
for road designers and other practitioners on the design of paths for safe
and efficient walking and cycling.

So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for cycling!

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 at 00:33, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world
> would be:
>
> 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use
> bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes
> are expressily permitted".
>
> 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw
> preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian
> states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In
> the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be
> explicitly signed, it does not make sense.
>
> BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian
> access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when
> working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think
> the user is  basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add
> that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue
> to welcome him in our OSM community.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared
> > paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are
> > permitted" in Victoria Australia.
> >
> > Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> > serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this
> > case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said
> > nothing.
> >
> > I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> > bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> > "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
> >
> > There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the
> > sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I
> > request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present
> > to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence
> > that bicycles are disallowed.
> >
> > Sorry to bother you all
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Michael Collinson]

I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world 
would be:


1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use 
bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes 
are expressily permitted".


2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw 
preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian 
states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In 
the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be 
explicitly signed, it does not make sense.


BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian 
access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when 
working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think 
the user is  basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add 
that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue 
to welcome him in our OSM community.


Mike


On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared 
paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are 
permitted" in Victoria Australia.


Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be 
serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this 
case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said 
nothing.


I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where 
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were 
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"


There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the 
sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I 
request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present 
to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence 
that bicycles are disallowed.


Sorry to bother you all
Tony



___
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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Tony,
   The area

in
question is certainly what I wouldn't call a footpath being a wide grass
only area but what is a footpath? I think of a footpath mainly in urban
areas being just wider than a large pram (wider in shopping precincts),
either concrete or asphalt. In rural areas, I see footpaths also being
longer gravel versions that allow primary school kids safe access to the
local school or bus stop. Anything else is a path, track or shared footpath
however

 In Victoria (as with other states) the road safety rules

say
throughout ... "Bicycle, footpath, motor bike, nature strip and postal
vehicle are defined in the dictionary. ". I can't find a precise well-used
definition but the WA Road Traffic Rules

say "footpath means an area that is open to the public that is designated
for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians;"

Things get murkier if you pop over  to Macquarie Dictionary

and
see that Footpath can be inferred by some, as the entire area from
residential boundary to road so that includes the grass, trees, crossovers
and potentially, a "sidewalk". This is what I would call a naturestrip or
roadside verge.

I see the WA definition of "designated for" as important. I also see
potential risk to pedestrians and cyclists (reversing cars out of
driveways) being key and the length of footpath as important as a long path
without many exits would suggest cycling as a key option. In his instance,
the footpath is on private land, has not been designated as a footpath and
isn't signposted so I see this as a perfectly legitimate to cycle.

I know this hasn't answered your question however I would consider a
footpath is only when a path runs parallel to a road and is in very close
proximity to that road i.e. a sidewalk, Everything else is a path.

Regards

Ewen



On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 20:26,  wrote:

> Hi
> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared
> paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are
> permitted" in Victoria Australia.
>
> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this
> case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said
> nothing.
>
> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
>
> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the
> sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I
> request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present
> to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence
> that bicycles are disallowed.
>
> Sorry to bother you all
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared  
paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are  
permitted" in Victoria Australia.


Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be  
serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this  
case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said  
nothing.


I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where  
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were  
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"


There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the  
sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I  
request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present  
to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence  
that bicycles are disallowed.


Sorry to bother you all
Tony



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