In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889007668096819260/unknown.png Everything that sort of looks like a footpath has to be assumed to be a footpath. After having a quick look, I think most of what got really is a footpath. But there are probably some errors. e.g. this here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850699423/history https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.994347&lng=145.275723&z=19.334804029853068&pKey=973985916705405&focus=photo&x=0.4859326202768015&y=0.5905877763133818&zoom=0 should really be tagged as : highway=cycleway foot=designated bicycle=designated segregated=yes The fact that the footpath is mapped separately, but the cycleway is tagged as cycleway:left=track on the road complicates things unnecessary. It would be better to either tag both separately (as above) or tag both on the road. and further up the road, here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.991993667&lng=145.27608583300002&z=17&pKey=168126275188591&focus=photo&x=0.4901788209737611&y=0.36933104386182475&zoom=0 should be split into separate: highway=footway and highway=cycleway It's a bit annoying that the council did a really bad job with signing here, because this sign: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.990109333&lng=145.276258&z=17&pKey=1126201011221699&focus=photo&x=0.4920214322722534&y=0.4508931174020654&zoom=0 Should also have been at the point where the footpath and cycleway split. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 09:16 To: Andy Townsend <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags Hi all HighRouleur has replied at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 "In case you weren’t aware, Victorian roads rules state that riding not a footpath is not permitted. Hence there does not need to be a sign to indicate no bikes. The only exception apply to shared paths (bike and pedestrians) which are signed for use by bikes." And I have in turn replied Tony > > On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote: >> I think I've tried to contact this user before. > > Yes you did: > > http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886 > > For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My > Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom > of the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like > http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942&comme > nted > that includes that "uid". > > Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL > like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 . > >> >> However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite >> problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow >> cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' , > > They've now specifically been asked about that in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now > definitely know that it is an issue. Sometimes it might also help to > mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to > explain things a bit more. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > _____________________________________________________ > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see > http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
