Hi, I honestly have no idea. It was there long before I first edited this and it’s present on a lot of the cycle paths in Christchurch. CCC stands for Christchurch City Council so it might indicate that it’s under their jurisdiction I guess.

Oh I see, so any shared paths along a roadway should be a sidewalk with the tags “highway: footway”, and “bicycle: yes” rather than designated? Also a shared path with some degree of segregation but not enough to be a seperate cycleway from the sidewalk such as this changeset should simply be a sidewalk with the same tags i’ve already been using instead of a shared path? (I’m using the iD editor which has presets which is what I refer to when I mean sidewalk, shared path, bike path, etc, and I’m aware that that is different from other editors so may cause some confusion).

If that is the case that I’m understanding the guide correctly I’ll start on modifying my changes I’ve made here and in other places, of course it will take some time. Thanks for clarifying :)

Hi there, my basis for calling this a shared path with bicycle-pedestrian segregation is based on the "Dedicated cycleway and footway" as shown in one of the examples on highway=cycleway. Any other areas where I have added shared paths or dedicated cycle paths has been where they are similarly labelled to have some degree of separation between bicycles and pedestrians.

As far as I can understand under Japanese cycling rules, you are correct in that cyclists can only use footpaths when the road is unsafe, but cyclists should use dedicated cycle paths instead of the road when they are available (as shown by https://japan.stripes.com/travel/know-rules-for-riding-bicycle-in-japan.html#:~:text=In%20principle%2C%20cyclists%20should%20ride,paths%20when%20they%20are%20available. ("Cyclists should use designated bicycle paths when they are available", & "Cyclists should use the lanes marked for bicycles on sidewalks or roads when they are available")). Because of this, where I have changed footpaths to shared paths, I have only done so where there is clear indication of a cycle path such as in the case you have highlighted, or the road is clearly so unsafe (multi-lane with high speed limits) that cyclists will always use the shared path.

If I have missed something in my reasoning, please let me know as I do want to be accurate, but to me it seems that this is significantly different from a regular sidewalk, and the street appears to be designed for cyclists to use the designated cycle facilities as they have separation from pedestrians (although it is paint only).

Ahh I got it https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/heathcote-cycleway-to-be-closed good spotting

Why is this part of the Heathcote expressway closed? Seemed pretty open to me last time I was on it, or are they upgrading the crossings?

Hi, as you can probably imagine I intended to make the cycleway appear more prominent on the map due to it being a protected cycleway. I also wanted to make it appear a bit more separate because the cycle track is separated from the rest of the roadway by parking most of the time.

Routing was not something I considered properly and that has been fixed now as I have put everything back into the main road segment. That way directions should just say to go straight.

The convention that I have based this on can be seen with the cycleway on 35 Tuam Street, Christchurch, New Zealand. node/5264984092. This was similar enough in my opinion to copy the conventions used as they both have some degree of physical protection.

Hi there,
My reasoning for making the bike tracks separate came down to them having physical protection/separation to regular road traffic as I can see concrete barriers from satellite view. In my home city (Christchurch NZ) this is how our separated one-way cycleways have been mapped, this is also why they've been named "cycleways" (sorry about that I didn't know the terminology was different in NA). I will change them to be cycle tracks.

Our cycleways are significantly different in New Zealand, as we generally either have standard bike lanes or something more permanent than parking protected bike lanes and more temporary protection like on Richmond street. Those aren't very common here so maybe I don't know the proper convention for these.

I know some of those paths in marshland look like they really should be shared paths, but the reason I removed them as such is because they have no markings, and to the best of my knowledge they do need them to be one, or at least need to be shown by the city council via smart view or some other source to be shared paths, which they haven’t done. I’d still bike on them if I lived around there I think, but that’s my reasoning.

From what I know bikes cannot be on footpaths unless they are shared paths. Under NZ transport law a path/footway seperate from any road for cars/bikes is still considered a it’s own road, just without the motor vehicle/bike provision, meaning that unless it’s marked as a shared path you can’t bike on it (the definition of a road is extremely broad from what I can tell). I think Christchurch has by-laws for this in Hagley park specifically, making every path there shared, but I couldn’t find anything similar for parks in general. I believe this is why certain parks have signs indicating that particular paths on them are cycle corridors, and also why the ccc on their smartview site only has certain park paths as shared paths and not all. I’m aware this is a massive technicality but the map should be reflective of what is legal.