Consensus of Bicycle access on foot ways (Sidewalk Cycling)

[deStGermain]

I have been mapping approximately 12 months and I am learning lot. I started editing around Brisbane when I found many errors or missing paths/entrances and access to be incorrect and annoying. So, make the map more reliable I thought.
I am finding it frustrating however that there are editors who believe it to be important to remove bicycle access from paths that meet requirements of bicycles=yes tagged.
Referring to the Australian OSM tagging guidelines it states ‘There is no established consensus on how sidewalk cycling restrictions should be mapped.’. Not the best written section of the guidelines. Guidelines, should be the consensus, at minimum, if not the rule.
I’m not sure how there isn’t consensus. I have contacted persons to restore the access only to be told they don’t believe bicycles should have access. Another has asked me to 'stop adding bicycle access even though it is legal for bicycles to ride on footpaths(sidewalks) in QLD, but I can just leave it as ‘not specified’.
I’m certain that removing bicycle access, when it is otherwise allowed is simply removing data. I also believe that anybody removing descriptive and relevant data for reasons rationalised by belief, mood or feelings of nostalgia to be a vandal, meddling with things to have a bolstering of one’s ego.
In practice, paths that I have added access which have had them reverted no longer are used to connect between shared paths(cycle & foot paths), roads, cycle ramps and this creates routes that are illogical to locals, unreliable and inefficient to people utilising the map in areas they are unfamiliar with. All at the behest of dinosaur attitudes, antisocial agendas or simply apathy, all while a better route could be made and is legal to do so.
Here is how I tag foot ways for bicycle access and I ask for agreement or valid reasons why this can’t be the accepted way, so that we can reach a consensus;

Tag all foot ways bicycles=yes when all of these requirements are met,

1. It is legal for bicycles to ride, regardless of age.(e.g. NSW law of u16 would not equal yes). (i.e All states except NSW and VIC)

2. There are no signed restrictions or other rules preventing access.

3. The path can physically accept a bicycle (some paths, bridges or pedestrian laneways are too narrow to ride on without a potential injury, thinking foot paths in the oldest part of cities that two people opposing would require one person to step off into the road).

If it is already tagged yes, removal of yes should be a reason (signage, physical restriction or law) to remove access.
Ultimately this would end in bicycles=no, not ‘=not specified’.

If it is unknown if the foot way meets requirements either because the foot way cannot be viewed at street level or there is reason to believe it be unaccepted (e.g. some retail areas, near elderly health care, access paths to playgrounds etc.).
This then would be bicycles=not specified.

Examples of these differences will be needed for clarification and consistency.

Also, I feel persons removing access for no reason other than to remove it is vandalism, and clear information of what is regarded as vandalism and when/how to report it is needed.

[aharvey (Andrew Harvey)]

@deStGermain

Referring to the Australian OSM tagging guidelines it states ‘There is no established consensus on how sidewalk cycling restrictions should be mapped.’. Not the best written section of the guidelines. Guidelines, should be the consensus, at minimum, if not the rule.

In my view the guidelines at Australian Tagging Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Wiki aim to document the status quo of the community of mappers and how they represent data within OSM data model and tagging scheme. Where there is a strong consensus it documents such and this makes it easier for new mappers to contribute in line with the existing community, however there are many areas in OSM where there is no consensus and which are disputed, in that case the guidelines aim to document the various, sometimes conflicting, approaches and styles including reasoning behind each approach. While this leaves new mappers frustrated that there isn’t a clear single approach they should adopt, it shows more work is needed within the community to resolve conflicts or develop ways both approaches can work together.

@deStGermain

Another has asked me to 'stop adding bicycle access even though it is legal for bicycles to ride on footpaths(sidewalks) in QLD, but I can just leave it as ‘not specified’.

I can understand that, as it can contribute noise to changesets and some feel it’s not adding any value if that would be regarded as the default anyway. Historically it was standard to rely and these defaults and never populate a “default” value, but that is changing it’s more common to see “default” values explicitly populated. If you’re finding routing engines or apps not allowing you to cycle on a footpath, you could also raise an issue with them to default to allow for AU except NSW, VIC.

@deStGermain

Here is how I tag foot ways for bicycle access and I ask for agreement or valid reasons why this can’t be the accepted way, so that we can reach a consensus;

I agree with that. Where they are signposted then you would use bicycle=designated.

@deStGermain

Also, I feel persons removing access for no reason other than to remove it is vandalism, and clear information of what is regarded as vandalism and when/how to report it is needed.

Likely you have your preferred approach and they have theirs which conflicts. Starting a wider discussion here is a good first step to resolve this.

Could you post the relavent changesets?