Hi all, I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work. To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.). A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others. Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes. In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils. As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other). One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Philip From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Sebastian Azagra Flores) 2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:20:13 +1100 From: Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com> To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths Message-ID: <4a2c53af-0458-42a4-8f61-88d204c9a...@me.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don?t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing. In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority of instances, there aren?t any issues. In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles but to no avail. > On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > > This really is all already covered under: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability > > and > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render > er > > (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router"). > > -----Original Message----- > From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <fors...@ozonline.com.au> > Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34 > To: Kim Oldfield <o...@oldfield.wattle.id.au>; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths > > Hi all > > I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will > never be sure what the law is. > > Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them > the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle. > (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.) > > I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian > Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from > the risk of getting a large fine. > > I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the > ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers. > > Not sure how we arrive at a resolution. > > Tony > >> 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_restri >> ctions#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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211003/850b21cf/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:36:20 +0100 From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths Message-ID: <1f5cc6c0-ccc3-b7fd-9c13-76d82e3e4...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that > signage & local laws would then apply? > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM) "<transport mode>=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually: "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport" It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of transport so you should go that way". An example I've added myself is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other carriageway of the road. In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot traffic, and bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be treated like a highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean "legal access rules for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you should consult local signage and local laws". Best Regards, Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211003/a0a0ec92/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ------------------------------ End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7 *************************************** |
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
