Hi Joerg
Well this is what I was trying to say. As you wrote:
A way signed with 2.63 is a common foot- and cycleway with a segregation between cyclists and pedestrian (at least a painted line, sometimes a kerb stone). I would recommend to tag those as highway=cycleway,foot=yes to support the fact that on those ways a cyclist is not expected to find any pedestrian on "his" lane. And to separte this case from 2.63.1
I only am of the opinion, that it should say foot=designated (same applies for 2.63.1) because it is also on the blue sign. Following the logic that blue sign = designated
The only other thing I was trying to say, that I didn't know about the rule with the blue signs. I just followed the "usual tagging" and that does not show too much correlation with those signs :) I just counted around this area http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.18478&lon=8.45062&zoom=15&l... which I know a bit, about 20 foot ways. Probably all of then wrong to my knowledge. I will check them.
Now for [1] VRV 40,2 I could argue that, for OSM, and for routing purposes, it still is safe to assume pedestrians are allowed. Why? (Sorry this gets longer) Let's consider two cases: the "way" (meant OSM way) has a no sidewalk or foot way as in VRV 40,2. Then pedestrians are allowed anyway. (I think that case is intended by the lawmaker for cycleways marked with the blue sign, which run in parallel to a road or completely detached to any other road) Now the other case: There IS a sidewalk or foot way as in VRV 40,2. Usual case if the cycleway is not marked with a blue sign, but with the yellow stripes, kind of "lane" for bicycles, Velostreifen in German. In that case either this sidewalk is part of the OSM way, or there is a second OSM way , right next to it, specifically for pedestrians. In the second case, routing should choose the right thing anyway because of the "designation" in OSM. OK I know it's hairy and not safe.
In conclusion: probably best to tag cycleways with the appropriate foot=... in all cases that could be unclear other ways.
And for horses: Note that [2] SSV 33,1 does not disallow any other traffic on cycleways, therefor horses are allowed? It's kind of odd. But they definitely are not allowed on foot ways according to SSV 33,2
[1] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_11/a40.html [2] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a33.html
I gave a try to another edit of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions don't know if that makes sense.
Now I try to incorporate those blue signs to the CH features page
good night Datendelphin