I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue dotted lines for a path. If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes are allowed by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then you would need to see the tags associated with it to know the permissions. Hope that makes sense.
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to > others there's a clear difference. 😊 > Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for > shared paths. > > As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review > the tags for permissions. " > This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim > is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, > and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. > > Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's > problem. > People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg. > > OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193 > CycleOSM: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y (Bicycle > routes emphasised) > Cycle Map: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C (Bicycle > routes emphasised) > Transport Map: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T (Public > transport emphasised) > > Cheers, > > Adam > >> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores <s.aza...@me.com> wrote: >> Hi Adam >> >> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. >> >> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used >> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead? >> >> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags >> highway=footway + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below >> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ? >> >> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the >> tags for permissions. >> >> regards, >> >> Sebastian >> >>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> 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 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
