I have a problem with a user being very rigid with legal interpretation of access rules

Communities United Kingdom
1

User Pete Owens is steadfast in his belief that all pavements in the UK that aren’t shared footways must be tagged as cycling=no, because he believes that cycling is illegal on pavements unless otherwise stated. This is a nearly 200-year-old law. At face value, this belief is correct. However, it is not the whole story. Children under the age of criminal responsibility are able to cycle on pavements. And if you are walking your cycle, that is perfectly legal.

I’m posting because we’ve been reverting eachothers edits of late. My position is that we should allow routing software to make the decision on whether people are able to cycle on the pavement. I should add that I know of no software that does this - every application I’ve used puts you on the appropriate route - none of them on the pavement. I have not checked with any accessibility groups though - I am concerned that perhaps some disabled people will be excluded from pavements they may legally wheel on.

I am also concerned that this user is also stopping people cycling over pedestrian crossings - even when they’re unmarked crossings. I think this is incorrect - crossings are over the carriageway, and people have a common law right to cycle over the carriageway. They are separate from the footway and the same rules do not apply. This is an important distinction. It’s also important because the user has been tagging pedestrian crossings that connect to shared footways as cycling=no. This renders the whole shared footway route useless for cycling, as navigation software will not work if there’s a break in the route somewhere. It’s perfectly obvious to me that if a shared footway connects to a pedestrian crossing, as is the case here - Google Maps - that the intention is that cyclists may leave or join the carriageway using the crossing. Pete Owens does not agree.

But today I spotted that he’s reverted an edit I made some time ago, to this section of pavement:

This road is extremely dangerous to cycle on, being filled with high speed traffic of all kinds, including HGVs. That pavement is one I managed to get the local council to significantly clear a few years back, as it was blocked by siding-in. It is the main route for all cyclists in that area going from Pickmere Lane to Plumley Moor Road. Everybody cycles on it and not the road - it has almost zero pedestrian traffic. But this edit now forces everyone, including small children, onto a 60mph 4-lane single carriageway road. Google Maps This is the kind of road where cyclists die.

Furthermore, the right turn from the A556 south onto Pickmere Lane is banned, so this edit has rendered that whole route inaccessible for cycling. It doesn’t help that two bridges in the vicinity are currently closed due to failure.

I have also noticed that the user is adding cycling=no to public footpaths. These are rights of way across land, by foot. They do not imply a right to cycle, or ride a horse. But Pete Owens seems to think that the right to walk along this routes means that cycling and horseriding is automatically banned, which I believe to be categorically untrue. Those activities are usually allowed unless access controls and signage dictate otherwise.

4 Likes
2

I should add that along with the A556 edit, he removed access here too:

Except that is a legal cycle crossing of that road. Even lacking the shared footway signage, the intention is clearly that people may use that crossing to access the pavement on the north side of the road. Again, a useful cycle link has been rendered inoperative due to these edits.

3

Such exceptional cases are generally irrelevant. When we ask, “are you allowed to use your bicycle here”, then we generally mean riding the bicycle and without age limits. Sometimes bicycle=dismount is used instead of bicycle=no to emphasise that you are allowed to walk, but when walking with your bicycle, you should typically follow the rules for foot instead of bicycle. I don’t know if the latter would work for children, but otherwise this needs a separate tagging scheme.

That doesn’t really change the traffic rules, does it? One may consider adding bicycle:practical=yes or something similar in such cases.

Roads with high speed limits are often penalised by bicycle route planners because nobody enjoys cycling there. If no better route is available, the software can always opt to instruct users to dismount and walk on a footpath legally. Instructing people to break the law is not a good solution either. In any case, road users should continue to use their own brain.

6 Likes
4

What’s the legal right of access here? A quick glance at the Google link suggests it’s just a pavement at the side of the road, and is therefore covered by the Highway Code’s very clear “you must not cycle on the pavement”.

That would make it a highway=footway; footway=sidewalk The bicycle=no is unnecessary as it is implied by the first two tags (but not wrong).

If there is legal cycle access there (implied by signage) then it would make sense to add bicycle=yes to the tagging, but even if it was legal doesn’t sound like it is of a suitable quality to be tagged as a cycleway.

6 Likes
5

I fully agree, adding bicycle=yes to a footway where cycling is not explicitely allowed by signage is incorrect tagging for sure.

Nevertheless I think expicitely tagging bicycle=no to a highway=footway is not necessary either, as cycling on footways/sidewalks/pavements is not allowed in the UK by law (same as in Germany).

See also the wiki page OSM tags for routing/Access restrictions - OpenStreetMap Wiki stating that bicycle=no is default for routing on footways.

Edit: @SomeoneElse had more speedy fingers than myself …

8 Likes
6

I don’t see that there is a “legal right” to cycle across pedestrian crossings. In the example given, the crossing is not designed for crossing while mounted (in which case the crossing indicators would have a bicycle symbol). Either bicycle=no or bicycle=dismount seems valid, although personally I wouldn’t add these tags to highway=footway.

There is a parallel discussion about routing on sidewalks here.

2 Likes
7

A hard disagree on this one. foot=yes + bicycle=no + horse=no is pretty much the definition of designation=public_footpath. A landowner will very reluctant to allow cycle / horse access on a public footpath through their land, and the barrier crossing on footpaths e.g. stiles are generally only designed for foot traffic. This is England and Wales only, of course; access rights are different in Scotland.

3 Likes
8

A hard disagree with your hard disagree :sweat_smile:

I imagine you’re thinking of a public footpath cutting across a field. However, public footpaths can be local authority maintained ways (or even roads) where cycling is indeed permitted. Sometimes these were just simple paths that gained their legal status and have since been upgraded to more substantial highways but have only retained their initial designation.

As a general rule, if you do not explicitly know an access restriction - do not tag it. Simple. The designation of public footpath only tells you about the access rights of pedestrians.

4 Likes
9

This is not true. A footpath can take many forms and says nothing about the surface or design or intent - it simply means a right of passage by foot, recorded on the council’s definitive map. A route through a field could be a footpath, and a route along an adopted highway can also be a footpath. The absence of a right does not mean something is forbidden, it simply means it isn’t guaranteed in law. If there is no signage or access control forbidding other forms of access, the landowner is effectively allowing it. That last part is crucial in the process of petitioning for a DMMO, which is why landowners who do not want to allow access are advised to control access or erect signage.

My point is that it isn’t for editors of OSM to police who gets to access a footpath - that’s the landowner’s job. And if that landowner isn’t doing it, then access is fine.

1 Like
10

Sure. Some public footpaths have become fully public adopted highways or more restricted. highway=service.

I would agree with that. In many cases, however, it is clear. If you have an agricultural track leading into a field with a “public footpath” sign, I think it would be fine to tag highway=track + access=private + foot=designated + designation=public_footpath.

I was primarily disagreeing with this point, i.e. that bicycles are allowed on footpaths unless signed otherwise. In the case outlined above, you can’t say bicycle=yes because there is no signed saying you can’t cycle.

1 Like
11

I think we have to separate “what the law in England and Wales says” from “what the appropriate OSM tagging for something should be” and “what it makes sense for a router to suggest”.

Firstly, there are two sorts of things in OSM in England and Wales that might be tagged as highway=footway. One is a pavement alongside a road which isn’t legally shared between foot and cycle traffic - there you run straight into rule 64 of the highway code (“You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”). I’d definitely try and tag these as highway=footway; footway=sidewalk in OSM to make it clear.

The other is a “public footpath” (“recorded on the council’s definitive map”). I’d try and tag those as highway=footway; designation=public_footpath. Cyclists don’t have a legal right to cycle there, but they may have permissive access because the landowner doesn’t forbid or actively encourages access. That doesn’t however mean that “If there is no signage or access control forbidding other forms of access, the landowner is effectively allowing it” - what you’re suggesting is that every suburban garden is effectively open to everyone unless there is explicit “keep out” signage, which in the context of land access in England and Wales is clearly silly.

I think that you’re right that we don’t need to tag bicycle=no on public footpaths unless it is explicitly signed (like this churchyard - and yes I’m now wondering it that should be no or dismount, but that is a different issue).

In England and Wales it doesn’t make sense for a cycle router to explicitly suggest cycling on any sort of highway=footway without a positive bicycle access tag, and it also doesn’t make sense to even suggest pushing a bike on a designation=public_footpath. However as a cyclist you ought to be aware of the law even if you’re using a cycle router that doesn’t.

Edit: Spelling

7 Likes
12

For comparison, re public footpaths (as opposed to pavements of roads), the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 says (Article 20(1)) “Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a pedal cycle on any public path, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.”

Although I suspect the routing algorithm mind cannot comprehend this. :melting_face:

5 Likes
13

Opening another tin of worms here :innocent: , does that also apply to e-bikes / e-scooters? :thinking: :zany_face:

14

Doesn’t this complete thread belong in the UK category …

1 Like
15

Article 2(1) of the order says: ‘“pedal cycle” means a bicycle or tricycle which is designed and constructed for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon’

pretty clear, I think.

3 Likes
16

As an example of an edit rendering a cycleway useless, here is a good example:

That route is part of the Weavers Wheel cycle route, a well-known local route used by many. And because the crossing isn’t a Toucan, he has tagged it as bicycle=no. Which means that some apps may now place cyclists on the road instead of the cycle route.

2 Likes
17

Pete is correct.

1 Like
18

If the crossing is correctly mapped as a puffin, then it’s bicycle=dismount (or bicycle=no). It’s unfortunate that Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and/or Lancashire County Council are promoting the Weaver’s Wheel cycle route but aren’t sufficiently committed to upgrade the crossings to permit cycling.

5 Likes
19

Look, cyclists should keep their eyes the road, not glued to an app with a dodgy routing algorithm. And we can’t just go aspirationally upgrading items on OpenStreetMap to what we’d like them to be, otherwise I’d edit my house to make it bigger and add a branch of Waitrose to the end of my street :sweat_smile:

5 Likes
20

The Cycle streets journey planner will suggest dismounting for short sections of footpath if that turns out to be the fastest or quietest route to avoid a busy road. bicycle=no stops this useful feature from working.

I know if one place in central Scotland beside s dual carriageway where the pavement is narrow so cycling is disallowed but people cycle there anyway as there’s low foot traffic and the alternative safe route is long, bicycle=dismount is appropriate.

1 Like