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

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi all,

The "best" tagging for some of these paths are inherently subjective, as 
there isn't a tagging method that captures the subtleties involved.


Firstly, distinguishing between a "foot way" and a sidewalk is a 
subjective decision. How far from a road does a parallel path be before 
it is no longer a sidewalk, for example.


Secondly, there are multiple overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to 
each state's road laws, each council's local laws may prohibit or allow 
cyclists in specific areas. I don't expect an average mapper to have a 
law degree, and, though it should be easy, it may not able to work out 
the exact legality of riding a bicycle in all situations.


The best mapping will always rely on discretion. I don't believe it is 
correct to assume a lack of signage is, on its own, enough to tag one 
way or another. At most, I would suggest a "bicycle=permissive" 
restriction to indicate the unclear legality on even well used paths.


I don't think going around adding a specific bicycle permissions to 
every footway is particularly productive. A routing service could easily 
make this a non-issue by offering an "ignore sidewalk" button.


Dian

On 2022-10-09 09:43, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


An interesting post by aharvey in that thread.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/38

regards,

Sebastian

On 9 Oct 2022, at 9:19 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from 
discussions on a completely different proposal:


https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

Thanks

Graeme


___
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

[Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au]

An interesting post by aharvey in that thread. 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/38

regards,
Sebastian

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 9:19 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from discussions on a 
> completely different proposal:
> 
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23
> 
> So, what is the relation between designated & yes?
> 
> 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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from discussions on
a completely different proposal:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

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

[forster]

Sebastian

Yes, 3b and 3c are actually signposted. They were intended as  
hypothetical examples. I asked the question of Ben to get a better  
undersranding of what he thought rather than to support any particular  
argument. I should have explained this in more detail and apologise  
for any confusion.


Re the suggestion of bicycle=undefined, I prefer just highway=path  
where theres no signage.


Tony

The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or   
proximity to residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no   
bearing on the allowed permissions of that way. Assume NSW is   
similar in their approach and relies on sign posts being present to   
confirm permissions.


If you track a little further west along that street level imagery   
where it crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed   
posted as being a shared way.
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist   
are permitted.


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275=145.1624139=16.86798684701922=1933421956805153=0.47345176124885663=0.627570043705694=0=photo   



I’ve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path,  
does  that mean that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?



I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe   
cyclists are permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as   
stated under the law.


For the purposes of this conversation I think that   
bicycle=“undefined/not specified” is a better option that  
bicycle=no  where no signage is present as suggested by Graeme.  
Thoughts ?



regards,

Sebastian




On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote   
"I continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I   
second that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I  
 am very appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme   
Fitzpatrick, Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my   
position. Only Ben Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he   
writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a   
shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out  
 your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for   
you to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes  
 of this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient  
 evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would   
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo

3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel  
 with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo

3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo

Thanks
Tony





_
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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Matthew Seale]

Hi Tony & List

There are differences in the areas of application of road safety law to off
road footpaths between NSW and Victoria.  This was noted in a discussion on
this same topic last year
[talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths (openstreetmap.org)


Vic road rules apply in roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H

Footpaths and nature strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related
areas and are  subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.

There is no provision in the Victorian Road Rules that I can find to extend
Victorian road rules to all unmarked (I.e. the vast majority) off-road and
unsealed paths in Victoria away from roads.  The Rules that Sebastian
refers to do not apply by my understanding.


Whereas NSW Road Safety Law includes a provision to expand the definition
of "Road Related Area" to any public space which has it's primary purpose
for use by pedestrians.  The Victorian rules do not have that provision.

Other users with Town Planning professional expertise have noted that for
general paths the absence of express signage permitting cycling cannot be
taken to mean that cycling is prohibited on those paths. The local council
is the relevant authority for nearly all footpaths in Victoria, but the
cycling signage is somtimes missing, not maintained or in some cases never
installed.  Some common sense is required.

Whilst I support a number of Sebastian's changes on footpaths that are
adjacent to roads, I do not support his approach on off road paths or paths
not immediately adjacent to roads.  In many cases I don't believe that
Sebastian has established a sufficient basis to determine that cycling is
prohibited on the paths where he has been modifying on OSM.  I share the
view of a number of other mappers that the absence of signage permitting
cycling on off-road paths (those not adjacent to roads) is not sufficient
evidence to remove previously established cycling permissions from OSM.


Regards
Matthew

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 6:08 PM  wrote:

> Hi Sebastian Azagra,
>
> Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I
> continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second
> that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very
> appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.
>
> I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick,
> Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben
> Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by
> default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume
> Victoria is the same".
>
> Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out
> your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you
> to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of
> this discussion.
>
> 1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
> 2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient
> evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
> 3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would
> addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?
>
> 3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo
>
> 3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel
> with a freeway or arterial road:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo
>
> 3c) A path not associated with a road:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo
>
> Thanks
> 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

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or proximity to 
residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no bearing on the allowed 
permissions of that way. Assume NSW is similar in their approach and relies on 
sign posts being present to confirm permissions.

If you track a little further west along that street level imagery where it 
crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed posted as being a 
shared way. 
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist are 
permitted. 

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275=145.1624139=16.86798684701922=1933421956805153=0.47345176124885663=0.627570043705694=0=photo
 


I’ve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path, does that mean 
that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?


I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe cyclists are 
permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as stated under the law.

For the purposes of this conversation I think that bicycle=“undefined/not 
specified” is a better option that bicycle=no where no signage is present as 
suggested by Graeme. Thoughts ?


regards,

Sebastian



> On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi Sebastian Azagra,
> 
> Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I continue 
> to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second that. Though I 
> have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very appreciative of the 
> hard work you do to support OSM.
> 
> I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Ian 
> Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben Kelley might 
> support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed 
> (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".
> 
> Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out your 
> opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you to assume 
> Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
> 2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient evidence 
> that bicycles are disallowed?
> 3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would addition of 
> bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?
> 
> 3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo
> 
> 3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel with a 
> freeway or arterial road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo
> 
> 3c) A path not associated with a road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
> 

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

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

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 18:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I 
continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second 
that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very 
appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben 
Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by 
default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume 
Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out 
your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you 
to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of 
this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient 
evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would 
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo 



3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel 
with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo 



3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo 






NSW bicycle laws: 
https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/bicycle-safety-and-rules/cyclist-road-rules



Almost at the bottom of that page are the footpath exceptions .. under 
16 for NSW .. Vic is under 14?



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

[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I  
continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second  
that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very  
appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick,  
Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben  
Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by  
default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume  
Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out  
your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you  
to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of  
this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient  
evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would  
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo

3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel  
with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo

3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo

Thanks
Tony



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