No wasn’t my intention. I was trying to fix the alignment of the shared way as it was sitting out on the roadway.
I had some issues with the shared way which was attached to the powerlines and I couldn’t disconnect it. I had to delete part of the shared way and redraw it. I tried to put the power line back to its original alignment.

I see where you are coming from. I have reverted the change.

Thanks Diacritic.
It looked to me like someone had accidentally dragged a node and joined it to another way.
I rode all the roads in Moorabbin during the last lockdown and the roads appeared to match the aerial geometry.

Thanks Dian. Good to get some confirmation on the ground.
I tend to err on the side of caution whilst out riding and don’t ride on the paths unless I see a sign that indicates that bikes a permitted.

Hi Tony, thanks for the follow up.
If mappers are verifying on the ground then there should be evidence of a sign that bicycles are explicitly permitted, rather than associate and tag the way based on the types of people that use it.

The names does suggest it’s for walking only.
I did not see any signage that indicated that bikes were permitted.

Yes that is correct

Yes that is correct

Yes that is correct

Agreed. Driveway changed to Alley.
Refer changeset #: 116858475

Address node change was accidental and has been reverted.
Refer changeset #: 116858142

I have split the way and tagged the western side of the Birtchnell Lane as a service road in lieu of parking aisle.
Refer changeset #: 116857890

Matthew,
I've taken your feedback onboard and updated the access=destination.
Refer changeset #: 116857608

The discussion on talk-au last year focussed on tagging of footpaths that had been tagged bicycle=no. This change is unrelated to that discussion.
My observation is that mapping what's on the ground appears to be discretionary and not followed based on the commentary on some changesets.

The size, location and/or "feel" of a way does not determine its function nor its associated permissions.
The Strava heat map you referred to (which I have also checked) is only a historic account of GPS data points where people have ridden. It does does not mean that it was permitted activity.

As an avid cyclist I am well aware that other cyclists do not always ride in the designated areas permitted under our laws.
The absence of a way being designated a shared path means under Victorian law that it is only a footway.

Hi Aharvey, yes I confirmed this on the ground as I rode this area a few days ago. We did not venture into the park as there were no signs indicating that we were permitted on bikes.

Tony,
First of all mapping is based on what’s on the ground as you insisted rather than what it “feels” like based on its location and/or proximity to other features.

Last year the DWG, made a decision, albeit an incorrect one in relation to foothpaths where I had set bicycle=no. I have abided by their decision and now use footpaths with the default value as this does not permit bicycles. Inn the end this yields the same result that I wanted.
I have verified numerous footpaths which are incorrectly tagged in OSM as shared paths and have reverted them to footpaths.

I only just finished the update. See changeset/116724931

Yes, was updating my previous changeset to use private rather than bicycle=no

As per previous discussion around the matter, we are mapping what's on the ground.
The Victorian rules state that cycling is only permitted where it is signed to do so, hence the absence of such sign means that it is not a shared path but rather a footway.

Hi, thanks for the feedback.
I saw that the majority of the roads in this park had already been tagged as gravel, so just using consistency to tag the road surface of those that had not been defined.