Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 21/11/2020 18:35, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in 
the middle of the park 
 
- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)


It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it 
sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.


In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a 
footway' criterion would be best?


Given the signage, I think the tags I listed are appropriate.



Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it 
was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good 
to me.




That's a whole load of subjectivity, that OSM  /really/ shouldn't get 
involved with.


DaveF
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dan S]

Yes, either highway=footway or highway=cycleway are fine, and there's
almost no difference if you're also tagging access rights explicitly!
Thanks for being careful about it.

Dan

Op za 21 nov. 2020 om 18:38 schreef Edward Bainton :

> Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the
> middle of the park
> 
> - it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)
>
> It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds
> like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.
>
> In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a
> footway' criterion would be best?
>
> Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means
> 'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was
> SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley 
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
>> > "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"
>>
>> The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
>> maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
>> bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.
>>
>> >
>> > In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
>> > problematic
>> > for access/parking tagging in OSM.
>> >
>>
>> There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
>> order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
>> existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
>> non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
>> how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
>> be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
>> the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved
>> elsewhere.)
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the
middle of the park

- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)

It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds
like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.

In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a
footway' criterion would be best?

Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was
SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me.



On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
> > "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"
>
> The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
> maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
> bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.
>
> >
> > In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
> > problematic
> > for access/parking tagging in OSM.
> >
>
> There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
> order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
> existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
> non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
> how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
> be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
> the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved
> elsewhere.)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Tony Shield]

Wiki says

bicycle  	yes 
 	Where bicycles 
are permitted, overriding default access (such as to motorways that 
permit bicycles as commonly found in western parts of North America)
bicycle  	designated 
 	Where a 
way has been specially designated 
(typically 
by a government) for bicycle use


So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no signs 
indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway.


'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in 
England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully 
ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set 
apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. 
So in the absence of any evidence - no bicycles.


In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is bothered 
unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark this in OSM? 
Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?


Tony

On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
bicycle=designated.

If the question is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
tag like a footway

Stephen


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over 
other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different 
transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor 
vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to 
certain locations.

If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) 
then I'd tag it as

highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:

Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't 
feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
nonetheless?

Thanks.



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


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[David Woolley]

On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
"permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"


The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the 
maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a 
bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.




In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is 
problematic

for access/parking tagging in OSM.



There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation 
order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has 
existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and 
non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent 
how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might 
be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install 
the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved elsewhere.)


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

[Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

I am forwarding this here because it seems like the "talk-gb-midanglia" mailing 
list is no longer active.

Date: 14 Nov 2020, 17:44
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: talk-gb-midang...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925
>
> That is the relation I am talking about.
>
> An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of 
> the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell this because the number 
> of members went down from ~400 to ~150. 
>
> If I'm correct, this route (Felixstowe to Nuneaton) is an important freight 
> train route.
>
> If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when there 
> were 400 members, then that would be good.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
"permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is problematic
for access/parking tagging in OSM.

Nov 21, 2020, 16:36 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Wiki says
>
> bicycle 
> yes 
> Where bicycles are permitted, overriding default access(such as 
> to motorways that permit bicycles as commonly foundin western 
> parts of North America)
> bicycle 
> designated 
> Where a way has been specially > designated  
> > (typically 
>by a government) for bicycle use
>
> So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no  signs 
> indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway. 
>
>
> 'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in  
> England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall  wilfully 
> ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any  road made or set 
> apart for the use or accommodation of foot  passengers;' . . .a penalty. 
> So in the absence of any evidence -  no bicycles. 
>
>
> In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is  bothered 
> unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark  this in OSM? 
> Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?
>
>
> Tony
>
> On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne  wrote:
>
>> I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it shouldbe 
>> tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then 
>> addbicycle=designated.If the question is here:>> 
>> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656>>
>>  then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone hasdecided 
>> to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,tag like a 
>> footwayStephenOn Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB>> 
>>  >>  wrote:
>>
>>> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
>>> authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
>>> the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
>>> highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
>>> pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.If it's 
>>> definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then 
>>> I'd tag it 
>>> ashighway=cyclewaybicycle=designatedfoot=designatedsegregated=nosurface=asphalt
>>>   (in this case)width=*If you know it's a public footpath 
>>> add:designation=public_footpathIf you know the footpath's reference 
>>> add:prow_ref=*Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?The only place a 
>>> rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.CheersDaveFOn 
>>> 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:Is there established tagging for a 
>>> tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?Eg: 
>>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974>>> There's highway=cycleway 
>>> | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you 
>>> can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
>>> nonetheless?Thanks.___Talk-GB 
>>> mailing list>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>>> 
>>> ___Talk-GB mailing list>>> 
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___Talk-GB mailing list>> 
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Stephen Colebourne]

I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
bicycle=designated.

If the question is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
tag like a footway

Stephen


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority 
> over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of 
> different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential 
> permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way 
> is specific to certain locations.
>
> If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) 
> then I'd tag it as
>
> highway=cycleway
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> segregated=no
> surface=asphalt  (in this case)
> width=*
>
> If you know it's a public footpath add:
> designation=public_footpath
>
> If you know the footpath's reference add:
> prow_ref=*
>
> Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?
>
> The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
> designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't 
> feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
> nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

HI

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.


If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in 
GSV) then I'd tag it as


highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
designated foot and cycles shared?


Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it 
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's 
the best tag nonetheless?


Thanks.



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

segregated=no

I added it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle as an example S7

surface=asphalt (if I am interpreting word "tarmac" well)
width=1.5 / est_width=1.5 if you want

Access tags are bit weird, but I will leave commenting to people who know GB 
rules
well.


Nov 21, 2020, 11:28 by bainton@gmail.com:

> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
> designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't 
> feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
> nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

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

[Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Edward Bainton]

Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but
designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the
best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb