Doing some looking & found this site: http://lgam.wikidot.com/footpath
Some of definitions it mentions are: The Glossary of Austroads Terms <http://lgam.wikidot.com/glossary-of-austroads-terms> defines a footpath as a "public way reserved for the movement of pedestrians and of manually propelled vehicles." The Australian Road Rules <http://lgam.wikidot.com/australian-road-rules> define a footpath as "an area open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians." Part 6A of the Austroads Guide to Road Design <http://lgam.wikidot.com/austroads-guide-to-road-design> provides guidance for road designers and other practitioners on the design of paths for safe and efficient walking and cycling. So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for cycling! Thanks Graeme On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 at 00:33, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world > would be: > > 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use > bicycle=designated. I.e. "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes > are expressily permitted". > > 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw > preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian > states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In > the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be > explicitly signed, it does not make sense. > > BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian > access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when > working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think > the user is basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add > that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue > to welcome him in our OSM community. > > Mike > > > On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Hi > > I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared > > paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are > > permitted" in Victoria Australia. > > > > Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be > > serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this > > case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said > > nothing. > > > > I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where > > bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were > > "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" > > > > There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the > > sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I > > request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present > > to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence > > that bicycles are disallowed. > > > > Sorry to bother you all > > Tony > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
