No response from mapper. Sidewalk surveyed and has no shared path signage. Bike permissions removed per changeset/152520894

Hi ChonkerStonker. What was the basis to set bicycle=yes on the sidewalk along Frater St and Newbury St - way/1228418348
It looks like it is an ordinary sidewalk with no shared path signage or design features - which would indicate bicycles are not permitted. Thanks.

Hi Bob
There appear to be two sets of signs showing bicycles are prohibited on Brunton Avenue at the Jolimont Rd end. The signage is visible on Mapilliary, and also as referenced in the Brunton Ave way history from 6 months ago. It appears the bicycle=no tag was correct.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=771234983764389
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=292358742931127

Hi Scott, I edited this intersection a couple of months ago. Grimshaw street has no physically separated lanes through this section, only paint markings. As noted on talk-au discussions, roads where there are no physically separated lanes are mapped as a single way, not separate ways.
Also check the bus route relations that run through this intersection as it appears you have broken most of them with this edit. e.g. relation/14027889#map=18/-37.70506/145.10309
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120623874

What is your source this is private / access prohibited to the general public? The available Mapilliary shots do not show locked gates, nor any signage stating that accesss is restricted to the public. The path does appear to be a path of desire, so possibly informal=yes? rather than access=private

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=486689319144557
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.931828128766995&lng=145.18655389224&z=17&pKey=4236327473073676&focus=photo

How does this sit with the Wiki guidance on use of service=parking_aisle? Not every way associated with a parking area is a parking aisle. e.g. Perimeter ways and connecting ways use highway=service without service=* instead. ref Disambiguation & Examples. service=parking_aisle
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117935408

Yes I saw that in the imagery. This question is addressed in OSM Wiki guidance as linked above. The Wiki clearly states Access=private is not used to indicate private property. It used to identify access is restricted and that you need individual permission to enter - which does not appear to be the case with this estate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116762592

I doubt the path on the north side of Ernst Wanke Rd (way/59275619 & 997662440) shoudl be tagged as footpath. The note on the on the way indicates this is part of a shared trail network connecting to the Hallam Bypass Trail. Strava Heat maps show the path is heavily used by cyclists, and the design of this path as a ~3m wide contoured path set well back from the busy main road is consistent with design for shared paths to segregate recreational cyclists from main roads. As noted on talk-au discussion on this topic last year, the absence of cycling signs is not sufficient to confirm that cycling is prohibited.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115869147

Available imagery suggests this housing estate would be more appropriately tagged access=destination (i.e. no through traffic, public may enter to reach a destination) rather than access=private. Note the guidance in the Wiki that access=private records that access is restricted to the public, not that the object is private property. See
access=private.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116762592

Thanks for the reply bobbyd. Yes that is the case: bicycle=no tag in OSM is used to indicate that bicycles are not permitted / legality. I have reviewed the Mapilliary images up and down Queens Road there are no restrictions shown prohibiting bicycles indicated on Queens Road or its approaches. (I do tend to agree though that road wouldn't be my first preference for cycling through Melbourne).

I have raised a new changeset to revert the bicycle=no tags changeset/116322998

Thanks again for clarifying.

Hi bobbyd. I realise this change was some time ago. However what was your source that bicycles are prohibited from riding on Queens Road? I could not find any Vicroads information or signage on the road that prohibits cycling on this road. see also bicycle=no

Thanks flushmaniac.
Yes I know and use Wandrer.Earth. Agree that Wandrer can be useful to help cyclists identify roads may need updating on OSM. However I’m not convinced that bicycle=no is the correct tag to apply on some of these roads as it seems the restrictions on most of these roads are unlikely to be specific to cyclists. See bicycle=*

If housing estate roads like Andrews Crt (WAY: 23892487) are part of a gated community where the public is restricted from accessing (no entry, gate control) then you can use access=private rather than a mode specific tag like bicycles=no. See access=private

I did see Wandrer changed their selection criteria in the September to include named service roads that had not previously been included. That caused a debate on the Wandrer.Earth strava group since cyclists who had previously ridden every road in a suburb in the past are now missing isolated named service roads. https://www.strava.com/clubs/528504/posts/17623214.

For some of those roads they are not restricted for bicylces or other traffic. Rather they were not part of Wandrer when the cyclist completed that area so may not have been attempted. In those cases your options are to take the issue up with Wandrer admin (or the Strava group) about their change of criteria and/or go ride the road if you still want to complete Wandrer in that area.

I spotted a couple of other ways in this changeset that look to have other errors that would be worth fixing:
• Luntar Lane (way/232008369) does not go through to Warrigal road on Bing or Vicmaps. Suggest the issue here is that the road geometry needs correction. Again suggest unlikely it would be restricted for cyclists specifically.
• way/49131971 is the drive thru in Red Rooster Brighton. Agree cyclists are not normally permitted in a drive thru (I’ve tried it once), but the OSM problem here is that it should not be tagged with a name that describes the purpose (name is the name only in OSM). Suggest to delete the name tag and apply the correct service=drive-through tag. That should render as not for cyclists in Wandrer and other correctly configured cycling apps so no need for bicycle=no once it is correctly tagged.

Hi flushmaniac, you have tagged a variety of named service roads as bicycle=no tags with only Bing imagery listed as the source. Most of them appear to be either laneways open to all traffic or roads within property developments. Did you mean that all access is restricted (access=xxx) in some of these? What is your source of information that these roads are closed to bicycles, but open to other vehicles? Thanks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112144836

Hi Adamh and HighRouleur. I would like to highlight these 3 was are shown as the Costal Walking Trail in the Bayside Council Sandringham Foreshore Master Plan as a walking trail. As these are highway=path then adamh's tag of bicycle=no is a valid tagging option to remove bicycle access per the OSM Wiki. That is not comparable to the other situations HighRouleur refers to in that last comment.
https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/26_april_2016_sandringham_foreshore_masterplan_plan_2016.pdf

Hi, Can you clarify what access restrictions are indicated on the signage? The tag access=private is used to indicate that the general public are restricted from entering an area, e.g. "no tresspassing" or gate control, resident/member area or by individual invite only.
If it is simply signed "private property" but the housing estate is accessible to the public (typical of most housing estates like this one in Melbourne) then the Wiki guidance says not to use access=private. See: access=private
You seem to have used this tag quite a bit recently and the same question would apply to a number of your recent changesets. thanks.

The path along Hallam Rd is signed as as shared cycleway from Pound Rd to Ormond Road as shown on Mapilliary. way/31659577 should be reverted to a shared cycleway or reinstate the bicycle=yes.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=144954007603964
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2031215400361053
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=851076202144993
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=497400694795407
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=566530107645541
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1410241922644656

Hi HighRoueur
I have several queries on this changeset. Are you able to clarify the reasons for the following or if these should be reverted?
1/ You have added access=private to Cardinia Close (Way: 22898760) and Sylvan crt (way/22898764). Bing aerial images and Mapilliary appear to show these are normal residential streets with no indications of restriction on bicycle access.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=490471555733089
2/ You have changed the cyclepath alongside Brady Road (way/678341454) into a footpath with bicycle=no. Mapilliary photo trails show this is signed and marked as a shared cyclepath (same link as above).
3/ You added bicycle=no to Dunlopillo drive (way/40342469). Mapilliary photo trails do not appear to show any restriction on access for bicycles
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=785496155435920
4/ You added multiple bicycle=no tags to turn lanes on Greens Rd, Princes Hwy and The Frankston-Dandenong road. All of these appear inconsistent with their primary roads which have no restrictions on bicycles. As the main roads are tagged with bicycle access why would the turn lanes be tagged as not allowing bikes?
Thanks

Thank you HighRouleur. The 66kV power line tagging has been reverted.

Hi, ref way/506056033 you have tagged a 66kV power line as highway=footway. The 66kV line is part of a relation to the 66kV distribution route from Fishermans Bend Terminal Station to Albert Park substation, and has tags for cables, circuits, voltage and wires. and power poles marked as nodes. The 66kV line and power poles are visible on Bing aerial imagery. If you check OMS history of this power line this shows it was originally mapped based on AEMO and Citipower (distributor) information. See also the large number of warnings this change has created.

Hi, you have added "bicycle=no" tags to a significant number of service roads. There are no comments on the changeset to explain the changes - which would be helpful. From the aerial imagery these roads appear open to normal traffic - i.e. including bicycles. Can you explain how you determined bicycles are prohibited on these roads? Do these roads have bicycles prohibited signs (e.g. local knowledge or survey)? Thanks.