Changeset: 150061733
added missing features and updated alignments
Closed by niobium-fronds
Tags
changesets_count | 748 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.28.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing Maps Aerial;.gpx data file |
locale | en-US |
resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags | 1 |
Discussion
-
Comment from deStGermain
May I ask why you removed bicycle access from the foot ways here? You're also adding curbs that are incorrect, I've pointed this out to you previously. The paths here meet everything that is required to have bicycle access. Removing it to 'Not specified' is illogical. It can be N/S, if you don't know, but you didn't add it, I did. If it doesn't allow access then please change the tag to 'No'. Did you mean 'No'? I'm not aware of any restrictions here, or anywhere you've been removing it.
-
Comment from niobium-fronds
Hi, there are a few reasons why I removed it. Firstly, I understand that it is legal to ride on sidewalk/footpaths but they are not designed for bicycle usage, they are designed for slow moving foot traffic (they are narrow with limited sight lines to driveways and corners). The inclusion of bikes on the allowed access for sidewalks results in poor navigation for cycling specific apps that use OSM data where the apps are directing usings to ride on sidewalks as they take the bike tag to equal a bike path which these sidewalks are not. Finally, there is inconsistency across Brisbane with most sidewalks not tagged with bikes and only a few have recently tag with bikes. I think it should remain consistent.
-
Comment from deStGermain
You are simplifying how routing apps use data to determine which ways they choose. Allowing bicycle=yes is not equal to bicycle=designated. bicycles=designated will always be used over bicycle=yes. 'yes' is only used in the routing apps that I test when that is the easiest connection to either a road or designated way, or, if it is faster (not speed but time).
Mapping to please routing apps is incorrect and is akin to map for the renderer because you are supplying data for a specific outcome. Routing apps need to change there routing engines if they are placing bicycles upon paths when there are other better options. Which app(s) are you referring to?
Every app that I am aware of doesn't place cyclists on sidewalks unless it either connects to a designated way or it is quicker (Except one app, which you choose to be on sidewalks, irrespective of allocated access). I have personally ridden on this path numerous times, there is no problem with the line of sight. The road however is, as vehicles cut the corner onto the shoulder, so perhaps you should remove bicycle access from the Chalk Street corner. Fraser Street is a straight line and even though there is a physical connection to the designated cycleway you have your feelings about things, rather than attempting to provide data.
If safety is your concern the curbs you have paced here are incorrect, (third time I'm pointing this out). The vision impaired will be happy to find a drop in curb height when you've told them to expect none. But its good you barred those pesky bike riders from travelling on a path that they will still ride on because of some personal agenda based on fallacies. Inconsistencies don't form an argument, it is legally allowed, meets requirements and you need a better argument than an unreliable routing app trying to sell subscriptions.
If someone wants to go down that path on a bike, they are allowed, legally. But you know better?
Why not give the data to the map which is factual and allow decision making to adults, which is their right, rather than making it for them. You're not a mapping vigilante you're just meddling. -
Comment from niobium-fronds
I will continue to update the map as has been traditionally done where sidewalks are not tagged with bikes. I won't be responding to any of your comments in future
- 1272918534, v1
- 1272918535, v1
- 1272918536, v1
- 1272918537, v1
- 1272918538, v1
- 1272918539, v1
- 1272918540, v1
- 1272918541, v1
- 1272918542, v1
- 1272918543, v1
- 1272918544, v1
- 1272918545, v1
- 1272918546, v1
- 1272918547, v1
- 1272918548, v1
- 1272918549, v1
- 1272918550, v1
- 1272918551, v1
- 1272918552, v1
- 1272918553, v1
Relations (2)
- 11820323224, v1
- 11820323225, v1
- 11820323226, v1
- 11820323227, v1
- 11820323228, v1
- 11820323229, v1
- 11820323230, v1
- 11820323231, v1
- 11820323232, v1
- 11820323233, v1
- 11820323234, v1
- 11820323235, v1
- 11820323236, v1
- 11820323237, v1
- 11820323238, v1
- 11820323239, v1
- 11820323240, v1
- 11820323241, v1
- 11820323242, v1
- 11820323243, v1
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |