Cycling in Parks

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cycling in Parks

Steven Hirschorn
I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
would know).

One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.

What would work best to capture this situation?

Thanks,
Steven

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Jon Pennycook-2
Hello Steven. 

Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are useful for routers!) 

As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining the bylaws or forbidding cycling? 

Jon

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
would know).

One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.

What would work best to capture this situation?

Thanks,
Steven

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Steven Hirschorn
On 13/01/2021 13:33, Steven Hirschorn wrote:
> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
> would know).
>
> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.

"=yes" would imply a legal right of access, which doesn't sound correct
here.


> highway=cycleway seems to
> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
> facto rules,
... and to me, perhaps with a note saying that while cycling is de jure
prohibited it is actually de facto permitted (or even encouraged)
> but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
> to tag for the renderer)

Different renderers will I'm sure do different things.  There are a
number of cycle maps around, and I'd hope they'd all show
"bicycle=permissive" as "somewhere that you can cycle", but I've never
seen a good summary of exactly what will appear as what comparing
various cycle maps (though some will have legends of course).


> or on a cycle routing engine.

again, depends on the router - in a perfect world I'd expect it to be
routable but with a penalty compared to a "real" cycleway. You can test
this yourself at osm.org - using taginfo and overpass, find a
"highway=footway; bicycle=permissive" that has been that way for a while
and see if either of the two bicycle routers available from osm.org
route over it,

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Chris Hodges
I can always check stuff on Komoot too.  That's OSM data and passes more
underlying info on to the user than others I've used

On 13/01/2021 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 13/01/2021 13:33, Steven Hirschorn wrote:
>> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
>> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
>> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
>> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
>> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
>> would know).
>>
>> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
>> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.
>
> "=yes" would imply a legal right of access, which doesn't sound
> correct here.
>
>
>> highway=cycleway seems to
>> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
>> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
>> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
>> facto rules,
> ... and to me, perhaps with a note saying that while cycling is de
> jure prohibited it is actually de facto permitted (or even encouraged)
>> but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
>> to tag for the renderer)
>
> Different renderers will I'm sure do different things.  There are a
> number of cycle maps around, and I'd hope they'd all show
> "bicycle=permissive" as "somewhere that you can cycle", but I've never
> seen a good summary of exactly what will appear as what comparing
> various cycle maps (though some will have legends of course).
>
>
>> or on a cycle routing engine.
>
> again, depends on the router - in a perfect world I'd expect it to be
> routable but with a penalty compared to a "real" cycleway. You can
> test this yourself at osm.org - using taginfo and overpass, find a
> "highway=footway; bicycle=permissive" that has been that way for a
> while and see if either of the two bicycle routers available from
> osm.org route over it,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Steven Hirschorn
In reply to this post by Jon Pennycook-2
There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.

I found a page on the council website encouraging cycling in their parks:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9

Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in designated places:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello Steven.
>
> Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are useful for routers!)
>
> As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining the bylaws or forbidding cycling?
>
> Jon
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
>> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
>> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
>> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
>> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
>> would know).
>>
>> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
>> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
>> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
>> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
>> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
>> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
>> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.
>>
>> What would work best to capture this situation?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steven
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Steven Hirschorn
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
Thanks - here's an example of the longstanding highway=footway,
bicycle=yes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24805324

And here's the cycleway that I changed to a footway (before thinking
to check here). It was highway=cycleway until yesterday, now
highway=footway, bicycle=permissive.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23135636

All the other tags on each of the ways look good to me.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:09, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I can always check stuff on Komoot too.  That's OSM data and passes more
> underlying info on to the user than others I've used
>
> On 13/01/2021 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > On 13/01/2021 13:33, Steven Hirschorn wrote:
> >> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
> >> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
> >> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
> >> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
> >> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
> >> would know).
> >>
> >> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
> >> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.
> >
> > "=yes" would imply a legal right of access, which doesn't sound
> > correct here.
> >
> >
> >> highway=cycleway seems to
> >> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
> >> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
> >> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
> >> facto rules,
> > ... and to me, perhaps with a note saying that while cycling is de
> > jure prohibited it is actually de facto permitted (or even encouraged)
> >> but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
> >> to tag for the renderer)
> >
> > Different renderers will I'm sure do different things.  There are a
> > number of cycle maps around, and I'd hope they'd all show
> > "bicycle=permissive" as "somewhere that you can cycle", but I've never
> > seen a good summary of exactly what will appear as what comparing
> > various cycle maps (though some will have legends of course).
> >
> >
> >> or on a cycle routing engine.
> >
> > again, depends on the router - in a perfect world I'd expect it to be
> > routable but with a penalty compared to a "real" cycleway. You can
> > test this yourself at osm.org - using taginfo and overpass, find a
> > "highway=footway; bicycle=permissive" that has been that way for a
> > while and see if either of the two bicycle routers available from
> > osm.org route over it,
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Steven Hirschorn
I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.

I found a page on the council website encouraging cycling in their parks:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9

Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in designated places:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello Steven.
>
> Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are useful for routers!)
>
> As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining the bylaws or forbidding cycling?
>
> Jon
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
>> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
>> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
>> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
>> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
>> would know).
>>
>> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
>> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
>> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
>> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
>> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
>> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
>> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.
>>
>> What would work best to capture this situation?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steven
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Adam Snape


On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 14:31 SK53, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry
Yes, though being a recorded Public Footpath doesn't mean bicycles are legally prohibited, whereas a bylaw banning cycling does. Note also that the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 empowers councils to create a legal right to cycle over public footpaths (and carry out relevant improvement works).

You'd hope that a council would amend a bylaw if they wished to encourage a currently prohibited behaviour. Then again do we know that the previous 'no cycling' rule was actually backed up by a bylaw, or if it was that it hasn't, in fact, been repealed?

Personally I'd agree with the suggestion to map the situation as it currently appears to be in the ground (bicycle=permissive).

Kind regards,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by sk53.osm

It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky!  I've seen examples in Swindon and Telford as well, in both cases for very good reasons where the road equivalent isn't very suitable.  At least  if the council put up a sign pointing bikes that way it should be clear, but such signs are all too often vague, misleading, or contradictory

On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:
I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.

I found a page on the council website encouraging cycling in their parks:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/150/cycling/9

Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in designated places:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello Steven.
>
> Highway=footway with bicycle=yes/permissive appears as a footway in the default OSM view, but will show as a cycleway in OpenCycleMap. Whether you go with cycleway, footway, or path, don't forget to set a value for segregated (and ideally include width, surface, and lit tags as these are useful for routers!)
>
> As to whether it should be tagged with bicycle access, given that bylaws forbid it, I'll leave to other people to decide. Is there a sign explaining the bylaws or forbidding cycling?
>
> Jon
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 13:37 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have two parks near me that are almost adjoining. I believe they
>> apply the same bylaws, which prohibit cycling. However, I've not heard
>> of the bylaw being enforced and the local council are trying to
>> encourage cycling so I believe it wouldn't be enforced unless combined
>> with anti social behaviour (and I've heard similar from someone who
>> would know).
>>
>> One park previously had all its paths marked as highway=cycleway and
>> the other as highway=footway, bicycle=yes.  highway=cycleway seems to
>> be too strong as they are not designated cycle paths. highway=footway
>> would not permit bikes at all. Combining a footway with bicycle=yes or
>> bicycle=permissive seems the right balance to me of de jure and de
>> facto rules, but I'm not sure of the impact on rendering (I know not
>> to tag for the renderer) or on a cycle routing engine.
>>
>> What would work best to capture this situation?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steven
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Steven Hirschorn
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, 14:21 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote
Section 2 of the park bylaws prohibit cycling except in designated places:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/download/713/parks_and_open_spaces_by-laws
Sorry, I missed the actual link to the bylaw in the previous reply. I'm still inclined to agree with bicycle=permissive given that cycling seems to be de facto permitted and the bylaw seems to be in no way signed or enforced

Kind regards,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Simon Still
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In Lambeth.


The bylaws still prohibit cycling.  However, the signs at the entrances to the park say ‘Please cycle responsibly and give way to pedestrians’ and the council encourage cycling in the borough 

Some of the paths were previously tagged as "cycle route” on the basis of some very old ‘London Cycle Network’ maps for a route that was never actually implemented.  Later maps had ambiguity about status - the outer path was shown as a different line to the others but with no reference in the key! 

I was going through removing all ‘route’ tagging (as I dont’ believe it has that formal status or enough grounds to exist in any real form - no signage, markings etc) and updating ALL park paths (except those few where cycling is specifically prohibited) as
- highway=footway
- bicycle=permissive 

As that represents the most accurate legal status AND is correctly repressed as cycle able in the most common cycle map layer - dotted blue line rather than red for the one path I’ve so far missed (the mess on southwest corner are simply lines mowed in longer grass and probably shouldn’t be shown) 
And that ‘permissive status’ means it is routable but not shown as a *route* (blue shading)  





On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:54, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky!  I've seen examples in Swindon and Telford as well, in both cases for very good reasons where the road equivalent isn't very suitable.  At least  if the council put up a sign pointing bikes that way it should be clear, but such signs are all too often vague, misleading, or contradictory

On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:
I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Chris Hodges

Optimistically proposed and prematurely mapped routes can be a real problem - I've had one supposedly going across school playing fields (Bridgnorth) and one with barbed wire and big "keep out" signs near Weston-super-Mare.  The latter has apparently been planned for 10 years but the land owner's "over my dead body" might be almost  literally when it gets built according to locals.


They shouldn't make it onto the map until they exist on the ground - and I wonder how they did (your example and my WsM one). In Bridgnorth I made the mistake of believing a sustrans PDF - OSM shows a footpath round the playing field (correct) and a gap in NCR45 (incorrect, it goes along North Gate; I should be able to fix that from my tracklog) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C


I'd apply some caution updating all paths even in a single local authority's parks.  They often encourage it in some parks but not others - a per-park basis might be suitably cautious unless they've published something more general. Even with blanket permission I wonder what they expect when it's physically difficult (kissing gate etc.)

On 13/01/2021 15:36, Simon Still wrote:
I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In Lambeth.


The bylaws still prohibit cycling.  However, the signs at the entrances to the park say ‘Please cycle responsibly and give way to pedestrians’ and the council encourage cycling in the borough 

Some of the paths were previously tagged as "cycle route” on the basis of some very old ‘London Cycle Network’ maps for a route that was never actually implemented.  Later maps had ambiguity about status - the outer path was shown as a different line to the others but with no reference in the key! 

I was going through removing all ‘route’ tagging (as I dont’ believe it has that formal status or enough grounds to exist in any real form - no signage, markings etc) and updating ALL park paths (except those few where cycling is specifically prohibited) as
- highway=footway
- bicycle=permissive 

As that represents the most accurate legal status AND is correctly repressed as cycle able in the most common cycle map layer - dotted blue line rather than red for the one path I’ve so far missed (the mess on southwest corner are simply lines mowed in longer grass and probably shouldn’t be shown) 
And that ‘permissive status’ means it is routable but not shown as a *route* (blue shading)  





On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:54, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky!  I've seen examples in Swindon and Telford as well, in both cases for very good reasons where the road equivalent isn't very suitable.  At least  if the council put up a sign pointing bikes that way it should be clear, but such signs are all too often vague, misleading, or contradictory

On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53 wrote:
I'd think it's not uncommon for the council, as landowner, to either explicitly or implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I know several multi-user paths around Nottingham which are only designated as public footpaths, but have been incorporated into major cycle routes involving path resurfacing and other infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).

Jerry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's no sign making a clear case either way. Apparently the old
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not the new ones.





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cycling in Parks

Simon Still
I think we have some very over enthusiastic mapping of cycle infrastructure here.  There are some ‘unbuilt’ routes correctly mapped as ‘proposed’ but again I dont’ think this should be on there as it fails on a number of counts 

- it’s not yet officially designated (and thus strictly not legal)
- it’s not *useful* as there is no signage or markings to follow
- it doesn’t exist in any ‘readable’ form on the ground 

<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rookery road#map=18/51.46037/-0.14241&amp;layers=C" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rookery%20road#map=18/51.46037/-0.14241&layers=C

But I an ongoing discussion (that I’m just about to add to) on routes marked only with 1057 symbols as well.

On 13 Jan 2021, at 15:51, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:

Optimistically proposed and prematurely mapped routes can be a real problem - I've had one supposedly going across school playing fields (Bridgnorth) and one with barbed wire and big "keep out" signs near Weston-super-Mare.  The latter has apparently been planned for 10 years but the land owner's "over my dead body" might be almost  literally when it gets built according to locals.


They shouldn't make it onto the map until they exist on the ground - and I wonder how they did (your example and my WsM one). In Bridgnorth I made the mistake of believing a sustrans PDF - OSM shows a footpath round the playing field (correct) and a gap in NCR45 (incorrect, it goes along North Gate; I should be able to fix that from my tracklog) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C


I'd apply some caution updating all paths even in a single local authority's parks.  They often encourage it in some parks but not others - a per-park basis might be suitably cautious unless they've published something more general. Even with blanket permission I wonder what they expect when it's physically difficult (kissing gate etc.)



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb