Hi Kim, highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is highway=footway. bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing here.
I'd prefer a normal footpath to be highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path) either highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one) or highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this one, but it's a mild preference) This is mostly with a VIC perspective. Adam On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew and list, > > How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, > or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any > consensus we reach on this list? > > We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which > duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's > email below). > > We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for > various highway= values at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia > and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." > Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except: > > highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable. > highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about > bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this. > highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up > by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In > Victoria and NSW: bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the > other states? > These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations > with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines. > > On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim > all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath > (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be > tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases > where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows > bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in > person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be > proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should > proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the > community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors. > > Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this > discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to > work through and revert these changes you've made? > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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