Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
6 Oct 2019, 00:47 by talk-au@openstreetmap.org: > Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any > “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There > were 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012. > Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared. > - highway=path > - foot=designated > - bicycle=designated > - segregated=no > Are you sure that =designated is better than =yes for unsigned ways? > pedestrian ONLY path > - highway=path > - foot=designated > - bicycle=no > Why not highway=footway? > > cyclist ONLY path > - highway=path > - foot=no > - bicycle= designated“ > Why not highway=cycleway?___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle It applies to the world. There is nothing Australian specific that I can see in your thoughts .. Nor can I see why ACT should be different from the rest of the world in how it maps bicycle infrastructure. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 06/10/19 09:47, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell. *** # The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths found in the ACT, I will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if any). Path types that do not exist in the ACT are not considered or discussed here. ## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT ### CURRENT GUIDELINES Type A Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There were 343km as of 30 June 2012. The ATG says the tags should be: - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no Type B Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There were 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012. Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared. - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no ### CHANGE PROPOSED NONE ## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path ### CURRENT GUIDELINES I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the space it leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and inconsistencies). I would, therefore, specify specifically what is required. In other words, I am not changing the ATG but adding something to it that is specific to the ACT. ### CHANGE PROPOSED I would propose to add the following text to the ATG. “In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be tagged as follows: pedestrian ONLY path - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=no No. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway The tag to use for pedestrian ways highway=footway and the addition tags that may be used foot=yes, bicycle=no, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/* cyclist ONLY path - highway=path - foot=no - bicycle= designated“ No again. The tag to use for bicycle ways https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway highway=cycleway and the addition tags that may be used foot=no, bicycle=yes, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/* None of this is Australian specific .. so it does not go on the ATG... I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG ## Impacts of this proposal - Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) - Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) - Impact on relations in OSM (LOW) ### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent with the ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing. However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path to make the description of the path more nuanced are: - width=*m - surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt - footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT including Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local suburban shopping centres) - incline=up/down/% - access=no/private - mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM How is this Australian specific? ### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For the most common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in the ACT legal default path type - ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol - Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no - Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted - Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted How renders show the tagging is up to them, we should not tag for the render. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell. *** # The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths found in the ACT, I will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if any). Path types that do not exist in the ACT are not considered or discussed here. ## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT ### CURRENT GUIDELINES Type A Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There were 343km as of 30 June 2012. The ATG says the tags should be: - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no Type B Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There were 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012. Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared. - highway=path - foot=designated - bicycle=designated - segregated=no ### CHANGE PROPOSED NONE ## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path ### CURRENT GUIDELINES I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the space it leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and inconsistencies). I would, therefore, specify specifically what is required. In other words, I am not changing the ATG but adding something to it that is specific to the ACT. ### CHANGE PROPOSED I would propose to add the following text to the ATG. “In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be tagged as follows: pedestrian ONLY path -highway=path -foot=designated -bicycle=no cyclist ONLY path -highway=path -foot=no -bicycle= designated“ I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG ## Impacts of this proposal -Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) -Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) -Impact on relations in OSM (LOW) ### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW) The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent with the ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing. However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path to make the description of the path more nuanced are: -width=*m -surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt -footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT including Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local suburban shopping centres) -incline=up/down/% -access=no/private -mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM ### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW) I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For the most common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in the ACT legal default path type -ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol -Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no -Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted -Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted After all the paths had been changed to ATG and in the ACT legal default path type suggested here, the Mapnik style map would show almost all paths in the ACT as blue dotted lines. So how do you distinguish between type A and type B paths? Do you need to distinguish between them? The answer to both questions is the use of relations in OSM. Mapnik is only one rendering and there are plenty of others. If the Mapnik style does not show what you need for your purpose then another standard rendering style may do a better job. I will put links to some that I have found in another post. ### Impact on relations in OSM (LOW) As the type A paths are few but offer often (but not always) a better riding experience (faster and safer), I would suggest that it does make sense to use them as priority pathways. Some are “signed bike paths”. I would save this information in OSM as routes of two types: -Official routes -Unofficial routes As mentioned in the “principles of tagging” post yesterday: “There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the infrastructure. The ACT Government builds it and abandons it.” It, therefore, makes sense to link the fragments of paths are good into identifiable routes. Navigation is a problem in Canberra and the signage poor. The ACT Government and cycling advocacy groups are trying to “fill the gaps” with better paths to make cycling corridors through the ACT between town centres. These I mentioned in Discussion G as Principal Community Routes (PCRs), numbered M100, M200 etc to M900. But also let the unofficial routes in OSM stand. I quote here
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 05/10/19 10:03, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: # Principle of tagging 1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction 2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit 3. Tagging should be useful 4. Tagging should be intuitive 5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets) I will comment on the first two. ## Principle 1 ONE set of rules for tagging paths across all Australia is not possible ie each state needs its own section on the ATG. Australia is a federation. Each state makes its own road rules. You are confusing law with mapping. A "path' in OSM is not a 'path' necessary in some Australian law. The definitions can be different. State road rules override the “Australian Road Rules”. You cannot sign everything. Even when it is not signed, the laws still apply with penalties and potential prosecution and imprisonment (8 months in one recent example, 2019). Most states laws are not signed. The ACT the law is clear. All paths can be used by cyclists, pedestrians, but any wheeled vehicle that is not motorised, without exception. An OSM highway=path with the tag bicycle=no should not be used by a bicycle! You see OSM's 'path' is not necessarily an ACT law's 'path'!!! Combustion motored vehicles are not permitted on paths of all types. Electric motored skateboards, bikes, mobility devices, and soon scooters ARE permitted. The motors have power limits (not sure what, around 200W). 250 Watts Speed limits apply for footpaths of 25kmh for all e-devices. I think you will find that wrong. The power assistance must cut out at 25 kmh .. does not stop the rider going faster under their own power. A speed limit can be imposed on a section .. but that would be for all, just as it is for cars, e.g. a Toyota Echo has the same speed limit imposed as a VW Vernon. The liability situation is also clear. If a bike hits a pedestrian the cyclist is always at fault. Always? A cyclist may have to 'give way' to a pedestrian .. that does not stop a pedestrian leaping in front of the cyclist give the cyclist no reaction time. I think not 'always', there may be exceptions. I think your understanding is very limited. And I don't think you know enough to make changes to the wiki. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
# Principle of tagging 1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction 2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit 3. Tagging should be useful 4. Tagging should be intuitive 5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets) I will comment on the first two. ## Principle 1 ONE set of rules for tagging paths across all Australia is not possible ie each state needs its own section on the ATG. Australia is a federation. Each state makes its own road rules. State road rules override the “Australian Road Rules”. You cannot sign everything. Even when it is not signed, the laws still apply with penalties and potential prosecution and imprisonment (8 months in one recent example, 2019). Most states laws are not signed. The ACT the law is clear. All paths can be used by cyclists, pedestrians, but any wheeled vehicle that is not motorised, without exception. Combustion motored vehicles are not permitted on paths of all types. Electric motored skateboards, bikes, mobility devices, and soon scooters ARE permitted. The motors have power limits (not sure what, around 200W). Speed limits apply for footpaths of 25kmh for all e-devices. The liability situation is also clear. If a bike hits a pedestrian the cyclist is always at fault. This is not true on the road for motor vehicles versus cyclists. Road cycling is not all the popular in the ACT but generally permitted unless there is a sign that says otherwise EVEN on motorways in cycle lanes. ACT rules document is called “Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017” the bike rules are in section 15, page 260, if you would like to read them. https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/1828/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL2dlbi8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL3NpZC9mVVY1ZEs5M0Q4aENtcmVyX0kxNDRlWWxfYzFPc1NDMkx1MHZmZEVPbUtVcUhCYmNFSUkwN21OTXU2OEZ4V3NlYnRHWm5hc0NrUU1MQWtvS2NEQTNLVCU3RUt3MU5jcm9SbE5SOXBsSWNBWXRoVVBsWmRKMkZ3VzA0ZyUyMSUyMQ%3D%3D ## Principle 2 Tagging should not be code and be explicit in what it means. If the path is 3m wide we should specify that explicitly and we should not code this as “footpath”. If the width is not rendered, then that is the problem for the renderer. Wide paths are STANDARD now in the ACT. Narrow paths are historical artefacts. Here is how the NEW roads and paths of all types are constructed in the ACT. Look for this document: Municipal Infrastructure Design Standards Part 05 Active Travel Facilities Design (PDF) at the bottom of the page. https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/Development_and_Project_Support/standards-codes-and-guidelines/municipal_infrastructure_design_standards There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the infrastructure. Practice shows, that the ACT Government builds it and abandons it. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi : > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you > are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause > is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard > rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to > solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers > work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging > does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the > congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake > Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. > Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, > even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment > | ID preset | Correct in the ACT > | tagging | ID > editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > |
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
Herbert, Having a look at your selection clauses below, the node and relation are probably not required. You may also want to look at way["highway"="cycleway"] and way["bicycle"="designated"] (regardless of highway type) I have also used styling so you can quickly see what the issues (real or otherwise) you had with the first query. You can use https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQv and work from there. If you identify one or two particular ways and explain why you think they are incorrect we can have a look at those individually. Regards Ewen On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:09, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging > Guidelines and ACT law. You can visualise these for yourself. The script > should turn up thousands of hits but there are almost none. > Try this overpass turbo script. > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQp > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi < > herbert.r...@protonmail.com>: > > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths > you are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The > cause is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the > standard rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers > have tried to solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other > mappers work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path > tagging does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. > Where the congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth > Park on Lake Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many > times each year. Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and > bike path preset, even though neither applies in the ACT according to the > ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each > environment > | ID preset | Correct in the > ACT| tagging | > ID editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > | - | > | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default > path type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated > segregated=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | cycle path | > No| > highway=cycleway | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | cycle and foot path | No but > close | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated > foot=designated | blue dotted | blue dotted | > | foot path | > No| > highway=footway | grey > dotted | red dotted| > | cycle ONLY – no preset| Yes > (rare)| highway=path bicycle=designated > foot=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes > (rare)| highway=path bicycle=no > foot=designated | grey/brown dotted| red dotted > | > > Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the > bottom of this text. > > QUESTION > **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for > the ACT?** > > ## Most commonly used keys > These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, > segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found > below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is > signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key > footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a > way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the > inconsistency. > > Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and > segregated can be found in the ACT. > * segregated=no/yes > * highway=path/footway/cycleway > *
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging Guidelines and ACT law. You can visualise these for yourself. The script should turn up thousands of hits but there are almost none. Try this overpass turbo script. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQp ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi : > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you > are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause > is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard > rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to > solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers > work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging > does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the > congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake > Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. > Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, > even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment > | ID preset | Correct in the ACT > | tagging | ID > editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > | - | > | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default path > type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no | > grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | cycle path | No > | highway=cycleway | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | cycle and foot path | No but close > | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated foot=designated | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | foot path | No > | highway=footway | grey > dotted | red dotted| > | cycle ONLY – no preset| Yes (rare) > | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=no | > grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | > | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare) > | highway=path bicycle=no foot=designated | > grey/brown dotted| red dotted| > > Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the > bottom of this text. > > QUESTION > **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for the > ACT?** > > ## Most commonly used keys > These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, > segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found > below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is > signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key > footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a > way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the > inconsistency. > > Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and > segregated can be found in the ACT. > * segregated=no/yes > * highway=path/footway/cycleway > * foot=designated/yes/blank/no > * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no > * footway=sidewalk OR missing > > ## The ATG says > Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the > “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG. > “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path. > **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from > using that path.**” > Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT. > > What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls the > “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, and the > properly separated shared paths, which the ATG
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 30/9/19 9:20 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > One other shared path nearby, they're "painted" on the path itself, rather than separate signs, & are no longer in very good condition! :-) That's why I don't sweat the whole designated/yes thing. All we're essentially mapping is whether or not the signage/marking is present [1]. Doesn't make any difference as to the quality of the cycle facilities or how you're supposed to use them. [1] Obviously if your thing is street signs then maybe you'd care. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 30/09/19 14:37, Clinton Roy wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Ewen Hill wrote: Just to note that you can ride on a footpath if you are 12 or under OR as an adult riding with a child 12 or under. This is a national standard in all states I believe. I believe it's only nsw and vic that have these age based rules. Everywhere else, anyone can ride on the footpath (unless other wise specially signed of course). In nsw the age limit is 16, in vic it's 12. consistent rules would be..unaustralian? :) To get somewhat political ... "States Rights" :) Similar to many countries, separate areas have set the rules in 'their' locality and there are differences. Getting constant rules means separate politicians have to agree on them.. that does not happen frequently. I belivde WA is the only state requiring those orange reflectors on bicycle wheels and pedals .. after they are sold. Other states only require them at the point of sale, after that you can take them off. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Ewen Hill wrote: > > Just to note that you can ride on a footpath if you are 12 or under OR as an > adult riding with a child 12 or under. This is a national standard in all > states I believe. I believe it's only nsw and vic that have these age based rules. Everywhere else, anyone can ride on the footpath (unless other wise specially signed of course). In nsw the age limit is 16, in vic it's 12. consistent rules would be..unaustralian? :) -- Clinton Roy Senior Scientific Software Engineer Australian Synchrotron ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 06:42, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 29/9/19 10:41 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says designated means > > "...in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying > > something like 'pedestrians allowed', or a pedestrian icon." > > > > So if signposted for a particular mode, I'd use [mode]=designated. > > Sorry about that, I misunderstood what you were saying. We would appear > to be in furious agreement: only tag designated if there is signage (or > line marking). > > In Canberra there is no signage except for a hand-full of bicycle only > paths, so I use mostly bicycle/foot=yes. > > As a side thought I guess that this means bicycle=yes can't be used in > New South Wales as you can't ride on a path unless it is marked. > The only time I can think of to use bicycle=yes here in NSW is on motorways which aren't signposted as allowing bicycles, but at the same time, don't say no bicycles. To remove all ambiguity over what the default is, I'd tag bicycle=yes or bicycle=no on motorways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
Just to note that you can ride on a footpath if you are 12 or under OR as an adult riding with a child 12 or under. This is a national standard in all states I believe. In Victoria, you will see sometimes a pedestrian and cyclist on a white rectangle sign or a blue directional street name style sign or markings on the road. In Western Australia, there are different markings for the cyclist only sections of the 1060km Munda Biddi trails and other cycling only trails which normally shows a "Cyclists only" and a red line through pedestrians and trail bikes normally on a wooden post about a foot wide. Ewen On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:06, Andrew Davidson wrote: > >> I was more interested in how consistently they are installed in >> Queensland. >> > > Sorry! In my part of the GC, I've seen the shared path signs along the GC > Oceanway. One other shared path nearby, they're "painted" on the path > itself, rather than separate signs, & are no longer in very good condition! > :-) > > The most common one we see is the painted "cycle" markings, either on the > road itself, or in a separate bike lane. > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill Internet Development Australia ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:06, Andrew Davidson wrote: > I was more interested in how consistently they are installed in > Queensland. > Sorry! In my part of the GC, I've seen the shared path signs along the GC Oceanway. One other shared path nearby, they're "painted" on the path itself, rather than separate signs, & are no longer in very good condition! :-) The most common one we see is the painted "cycle" markings, either on the road itself, or in a separate bike lane. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:30 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Examples of the signs are given on the linked page > > > Yeap, the law is the same as the ACT. I was more interested in how consistently they are installed in Queensland. In the ACT as a rule they don't put them up (but they will use them as a direction sign or as a warning to turning drivers). Also interesting to note that the rules for riding on a shared path and a footpath are identical. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 06:44, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > Does anyone know what the situation in Queensland is? Do they bother > putting up the signage? > https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath Riding on a separated pathOn a separated path, you can only ride on the side that is for bicycle riders. The other side is for pedestrians. The separated path sign will show you which side of the path you must ride on. You must always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.Riding on a footpath or shared path On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians. You must: - keep left and give way to all pedestrians - always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you. 'No bicycle' signs and markings You cannot ride on a road or path where signs or road markings prohibit bicycles. Examples of the signs are given on the linked page Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 29/9/19 10:41 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says designated means "...in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like 'pedestrians allowed', or a pedestrian icon." So if signposted for a particular mode, I'd use [mode]=designated. Sorry about that, I misunderstood what you were saying. We would appear to be in furious agreement: only tag designated if there is signage (or line marking). In Canberra there is no signage except for a hand-full of bicycle only paths, so I use mostly bicycle/foot=yes. As a side thought I guess that this means bicycle=yes can't be used in New South Wales as you can't ride on a path unless it is marked. Does anyone know what the situation in Queensland is? Do they bother putting up the signage? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:35, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use > > mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is > > foot=designated+bicycle=designated. > > Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you > can't walk on it: > > > http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s239.html > > vice versa if it's designated for pedestrians then you can't ride on it: > > > http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s249.html > > Which is why I only use the designated tag if there is a sign. > But then there are shared paths that are designated for both foot and bicycle. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says designated means "...in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like 'pedestrians allowed', or a pedestrian icon." So if signposted for a particular mode, I'd use [mode]=designated. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
29 Sep 2019, 12:34 by thesw...@gmail.com: > On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >> If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use mode=designated. >> So a shared cycle pedestrian path is foot=designated+bicycle=designated. >> > > Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you can't > walk on it: > Note highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes, used to represent ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
On 28/9/19 8:55 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is foot=designated+bicycle=designated. Actually in Australia if a path is designated for bicycles then you can't walk on it: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s239.html vice versa if it's designated for pedestrians then you can't ride on it: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s249.html Which is why I only use the designated tag if there is a sign. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
If the way is specifically for a particular mode, then use mode=designated. So a shared cycle pedestrian path is foot=designated+bicycle=designated. A footpath (US sidewalk) which allowed bikes but not designated for them would be foot=designated + bicycle=yes + footway=sidewalk, a cycle only path would be bicycle=designated+foot=no. I used to be of the opinion "never tag a default", so don't add bicycle=designated to highway=cycleway, but now I'll freely use foot=designated+bicycle=designated (on a highway=cycleway or highway=footway) to make it clear this path is designated for both modes of transport. It also means that if someone flips between highway=cycleway|path|footway it doesn't really matter as the designated modes are still there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
# Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law I hope you can help. (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully formated. I recommend Typora.) Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines ## The Issue The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to solve the problem in the last decade. The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment | ID preset | Correct in the ACT | tagging | ID editor line style | Mapnik line style | | --- | - | | | - | | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default path type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | | cycle path | No | highway=cycleway | blue dotted | blue dotted | | cycle and foot path | No but close | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated foot=designated | blue dotted | blue dotted | | foot path | No | highway=footway | grey dotted | red dotted| | cycle ONLY – no preset| Yes (rare) | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=no | grey/brown dotted| blue dotted | | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes (rare) | highway=path bicycle=no foot=designated | grey/brown dotted| red dotted| Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the bottom of this text. QUESTION **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for the ACT?** ## Most commonly used keys These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the inconsistency. Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and segregated can be found in the ACT. * segregated=no/yes * highway=path/footway/cycleway * foot=designated/yes/blank/no * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no * footway=sidewalk OR missing ## The ATG says Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG. “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path. **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from using that path.**” Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT. What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls the “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, and the properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian Separated Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total length of paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km. ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT ### Type A Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in 2012. The ATG says the tags should be: * highway=path * foot=designated * bicycle=designated * segregated=no ### Type B Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. A "footpath" is any
