HighRouleur's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 125718009 | over 2 years ago | Agree with you on Munro St, slight oversight on my part.
|
| 130895149 | almost 3 years ago | way/456171193 is designated a cycle way but couldn’t see any signage to suggest this. Should this be changed to a footpath? |
| 131482653 | almost 3 years ago | Hi Diacritic These observed roads have a cross over from the main road (Oak Avenue) so they really aren’t a road in the traditional sense. They appear minor internal roads which upon my rear are consistent with the pipestems / shared driveway noted in the link below |
| 128376349 | almost 3 years ago | way/785472809 is shown as minor road but is more reflective of a service road as it leads to various car parks |
| 126886850 | about 3 years ago | Yes I was aware of the street level imagery hence the change.
Can you provide a reason why bicylcle=yes is permitted? |
| 69894123 | over 3 years ago | The entry to the path from Landcox St does not have any signage to indicate that this is a shared path. Suggest it is changed to a footpath. |
| 123265783 | over 3 years ago | Rode through Albert park today and could not see the path you have added through the grass area. |
| 62320753 | over 3 years ago | Russell Court appears to have restricted access due to gates on their end.
|
| 122245893 | over 3 years ago | I see where you are coming from. The presence of the crash barrier in the image would prevent a cyclist to get off Batman Avenue.
|
| 122245893 | over 3 years ago | Hi Diacritic,
Thoughts? |
| 121515744 | over 3 years ago |
Your comment associated with the changeset indicates access is for “management vehicle and walkers only” |
| 121515744 | over 3 years ago | If access is for walking only why does the way have allowed access bicycle: yes ? |
| 113849046 | over 3 years ago | Hi these bridleway have allowed access all:yes, however are not accessible to cars and cyclist.
|