I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some age restriction should be added. I would have thought the default position should be that bicycles are permitted.
My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities. Ian > 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
