On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will
some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The
majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not
defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist
takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on the
permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
The is defined in the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part
of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software
which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not
tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't
understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
[*] Is that the name of the person using
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a name
in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains
often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.
Regards,
Kim
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
