On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal
access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated
implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used
for/by that mode.
I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed
cyclist).
I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly
designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly
designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see
if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used?
So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated?
This view is backed up by what
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated
which is then immediately contradicted by:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted
itself by the value description template to the right that says marked
for a particular use.)
So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed
on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles.
Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated
by law rule then designated.
This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're
comfortable with the sign post rule or not.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
