Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

I'd agree with Tony here. Personally I simply tag a footpath with 
highway=footway. The implication (in Victoria) is that adult bicycles 
are not permitted. I don't see the benefit of explicitly tagging with 
foot=yes and bicycle=no. Tagging also ignores the subtly of who is 
allowed to ride on footpaths (children, adults with children, etc). If 
there is a sign which explicitly forbids riding then I'll tag it with 
bicycle=no/dismount.

Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both 
pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and 
bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise.

I've seen a proliferation of foot=yes/designated and 
bicycle=yes/designated tags on bike paths. Generally I ignore them 
unless they are wrong. Do they provide any value?

What happens if the law is changed and adults are allowed to ride on 
footpaths? These tags all become worse than nothing as there is no way 
to tell from OSM which paths have signs prohibiting cycling, and which 
tags are stating the default from before the law was changed.

What is the advantage of explicitly tagging paths as described in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29>
when the tags are merely duplicating the state law?
Are we just adding thousands of tags to make it easier for routers which 
don't know the state laws?

We have default access by highway type documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia>
Why is this being duplicated by manually adding these tags to ways? 
Should states be added to this table?

Regards,
Kim

On 20/9/21 4:05 pm, Tony via Talk-au wrote:
Hi all

I am thinking that OSM maybe could better confine itself to what can 
be ground truthed.

If a path exists, motor vehicles are physically excluded and that 
there is no signage
motor_vehicle=no highway=path

if there's signage then XXXX=designated or no

Its not for us to judge if the path is legally a footpath. Applying a 
bicycle=no is not even correct because under 12 year olds and 
accompanying adults can use it.

Let the map renderers and routing engines worry about the legalities 
which change over time and which apply equally to the same physical 
features and can be applied "globally" by them and let OSM concentrate 
on the ground truthed physical features.

Tony



Yeah, I?m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal  
difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in 
 regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell.



e.g. 
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath



simply lists the two cases together as one.



On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.



On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at 
 least in my suburb, doesn?t seem to bother putting up any shared  
path signs, despite the fact that some paths are by their  
construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly designed as shared paths.



I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the 
surface every few 100m: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png

But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs,  
they are still footpaths.



Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I?m supposed to tag  
all of these as highway=footway as far as I can tell: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29



But I don?t think that really makes sense in this context because  
you do want the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the  
80cm footpaths.



When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these  
larger ?footpaths? where mapped as highway=cycleway with various  
inconsistent tags on top. I?ve since standardized them to:



highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed ?real? shared paths  
which are designated)

segregated=no



I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated  
cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is  
really a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even 
 non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion,  
and map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it  
differs to what is defined by the Australian road rules.



But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to  
put up shared path signs for paths that are clearly designed as  
such) is probably common in Queensland and other states where there  
is equivalence of unsigned paths and shared paths in regards to  
bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach some kind of  
consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?



From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the  
footpath, unless specifically barred.



" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath 
 unless prohibited by a ?NO BICYCLES? sign. You must give way to  
pedestrians and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or  
endanger other footpath users."



Thanks



Graeme





On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:



Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to 
 walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)  
official signs I linked, a footpath.



It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as 
?sidewalk? in OSM.



e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png



In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren?t  
in this case) all of these are ?footpaths? as defined by law.



From: Kevin Pye <kevin....@gmail.com <mailto:kevin....@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap  
<talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 

ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
dictionary.



"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety  
Road Rules -- 
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html



The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule  
13(1) 
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html> 
,  means an area 
<http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area> 
open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main 
uses, use by  pedestrians"



Not particularly helpful.



On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, <fors...@ozonline.com.au 
<mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

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

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 

ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
dictionary.

Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a
road."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line
and the kerb.

That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.923613888889015 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.923613888889015&lng=145.32910000000004&z=17&pKey=941113219764485&focus=photo> 
&lng=145.32910000000004&z=17&pKey=941113219764485&focus=photo

So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.

Tony



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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


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