Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
CU Stéph
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
Who makes you believe that it is generally allowed to bicycle (in pedestrian speed) in a highway=pedestrian which is what I believe a "Fussgängerzone" resp. "Zone piétonne"?
See: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a22c.html http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a22c.html
"Fahrzeugähnlichen Geräte" resp. "engins assimilés à des véhicules" are not bicycles!
Jörg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Effectively, I correct if. But I think we should add the tag bicycle=yes to be right !
CU Stéph
Joerg a écrit :
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
Who makes you believe that it is generally allowed to bicycle (in pedestrian speed) in a highway=pedestrian which is what I believe a "Fussgängerzone" resp. "Zone piétonne"?
See: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a22c.html http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a22c.html
"Fahrzeugähnlichen Geräte" resp. "engins assimilés à des véhicules" are not bicycles!
Jörg
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
- -- Stéphane Brunner Mail : courriel@stephane-brunner.ch Jabber : stephane.brunner@jabber.fr - -- Encyclopédie communautaire - http://fr.wikipedia.org
Hello
I made some changes to the Wiki site. Here my reasoning:
Trunk roads and motorways should be the same for access restrictions/routing. They differ only in irrelevant points. The most prominent being that the lanes must not be separated physically with a railing. For routing, you probably will never have a trunk road and a motorway side by side anyway, that this precedence would be relevant.
Then for Bridleway and cycleway, use of those two types for bicycle/horse and foot is not prohibited. Only one rule applies (but thats already clear I think) That if there is for example a cycleway, cyclists have to use it. But that is clear with the designation already.
For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways. But this sign specifically does not hold for horses, see:
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a2.html [de] http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a2.html [fr]
But it really depends on what is tagged as a foot way, and I think that is still a huge mess. Still I think it is safe to assume that horses are allowed.
Feel free to revert things where you do not agree with my arguments.
datendelphin
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
CU Stéph
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
For example on cycleway you change foot and horse to yes, and so one, is there any reason of that ?
CU Stéph
datendelphin a écrit :
Hello
I made some changes to the Wiki site. Here my reasoning:
Trunk roads and motorways should be the same for access restrictions/routing. They differ only in irrelevant points. The most prominent being that the lanes must not be separated physically with a railing. For routing, you probably will never have a trunk road and a motorway side by side anyway, that this precedence would be relevant.
Then for Bridleway and cycleway, use of those two types for bicycle/horse and foot is not prohibited. Only one rule applies (but thats already clear I think) That if there is for example a cycleway, cyclists have to use it. But that is clear with the designation already.
For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways. But this sign specifically does not hold for horses, see:
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a2.html [de] http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a2.html [fr]
But it really depends on what is tagged as a foot way, and I think that is still a huge mess. Still I think it is safe to assume that horses are allowed.
Feel free to revert things where you do not agree with my arguments.
datendelphin
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
CU Stéph
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
- -- Stéphane Brunner Mail : courriel@stephane-brunner.ch Jabber : stephane.brunner@jabber.fr - -- Si un jour on te reproche que ton travail n'est pas un travail de professionnel, dis toi que : Des amateurs ont construit l'arche de Noé, et des professionnels le Titanic.
Hi
Yes, because cycleways may be used by horses and by pedestrians, if nothing else is signaled. I may be wrong, but for all cycleways I have seen it applies, that pedestrians and horses were allowed. No would mean, that generally pedestrians and horses are not allowed on cycleways, which is not the case, or am I missing something?
Datendelphin
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello,
For example on cycleway you change foot and horse to yes, and so one, is there any reason of that ?
CU Stéph
datendelphin a écrit :
Hello
I made some changes to the Wiki site. Here my reasoning:
Trunk roads and motorways should be the same for access restrictions/routing. They differ only in irrelevant points. The most prominent being that the lanes must not be separated physically with a railing. For routing, you probably will never have a trunk road and a motorway side by side anyway, that this precedence would be relevant.
Then for Bridleway and cycleway, use of those two types for bicycle/horse and foot is not prohibited. Only one rule applies (but thats already clear I think) That if there is for example a cycleway, cyclists have to use it. But that is clear with the designation already.
For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways. But this sign specifically does not hold for horses, see:
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a2.html [de] http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a2.html [fr]
But it really depends on what is tagged as a foot way, and I think that is still a huge mess. Still I think it is safe to assume that horses are allowed.
Feel free to revert things where you do not agree with my arguments.
datendelphin
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
CU Stéph
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
_______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Effectively your right, I add the act. But I also change the bicycle value for footway because there no reason to do it differently !
Its interesting to read the law and find a law all for cars and all against bicycle :(
CU Stéph
datendelphin a écrit :
Hi
Yes, because cycleways may be used by horses and by pedestrians, if nothing else is signaled. I may be wrong, but for all cycleways I have seen it applies, that pedestrians and horses were allowed. No would mean, that generally pedestrians and horses are not allowed on cycleways, which is not the case, or am I missing something?
Datendelphin
Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello,
For example on cycleway you change foot and horse to yes, and so one, is there any reason of that ?
CU Stéph
datendelphin a écrit :
Hello I made some changes to the Wiki site. Here my reasoning: Trunk roads and motorways should be the same for access restrictions/routing. They differ only in irrelevant points. The most prominent being that the lanes must not be separated physically with a railing. For routing, you probably will never have a trunk road and a motorway side by side anyway, that this precedence would be relevant. Then for Bridleway and cycleway, use of those two types for bicycle/horse and foot is not prohibited. Only one rule applies (but thats already clear I think) That if there is for example a cycleway, cyclists have to use it. But that is clear with the designation already. For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways. But this sign specifically does not hold for horses, see: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a2.html [de] http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/a2.html [fr] But it really depends on what is tagged as a foot way, and I think that is still a huge mess. Still I think it is safe to assume that horses are allowed. Feel free to revert things where you do not agree with my arguments. datendelphin Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello !
I just add the Switzerland in the Access-Restrictions page,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#...
If there is a mistake please correct it.
CU Stéph
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
- -- Stéphane Brunner Mail : courriel@stephane-brunner.ch Jabber : stephane.brunner@jabber.fr - -- Annuaire de logiciel libre - http://framasoft.net
Hi datendelphin,
I made some changes to the Wiki site. Here my reasoning:
[...]
Then for Bridleway and cycleway, use of those two types for bicycle/horse and foot is not prohibited. Only one rule applies (but thats already clear I think) That if there is for example a cycleway, cyclists have to use it. But that is clear with the designation already.
Really?
The Signalisationsverordnung[1] states in Article 33[2]:
states:
"Andere Strassenbenützer [als Fussgänger bzw. Reiter] sind auf Fuss- und Reitwegen nicht zugelassen." So bridleways and (signposted) footways are for the correspondent group only.
For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways.
I normally tag such ways as highway=track|path and vehiecle=no (this scheme is also mentioned in the Wiki as the favoured way). To me, footways need to have a blue sign..
Stéphane Brunner, you changed bicycle=no for footways to bicycle=yes. Why? What footways do you have in mind where cycling is allowed? IMHO cycling is not allowed there.
What I ask myself:
The Signalisationsverordnung only makes a clear statement about foot- and bridleways. It says nowhere that pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. Nevertheless, the sign 2.60[3] (Radweg) is normally used to sign a way that should only be used by cyclists. Furthermore, there is a sign 2.63 (gemeinsamer Rad- und Fussweg). Where is the rule, that cycleways are only for cyclists? Otherwise, 2.63 would not be needed..
Gruss, Thomas
[1] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/index.html [2] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a33.html [3] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html
Hi Thomas
Thomas Ineichen wrote:
The Signalisationsverordnung[1] states in Article 33[2]:
states:
"Andere Strassenbenützer [als Fussgänger bzw. Reiter] sind auf Fuss- und Reitwegen nicht zugelassen." So bridleways and (signposted) footways are for the correspondent group only.
You're absolutely right with this. And I actually didn't know/consider it.
For foot ways, things are not so clear. I think, usually ways which have a ban of driving sign (the red circle, white center sign) are tagged as foot ways.
I normally tag such ways as highway=track|path and vehiecle=no (this scheme is also mentioned in the Wiki as the favoured way). To me, footways need to have a blue sign..
It wasn't clear to me. Perhaps this should be added to the swiss map features. I also think that there are a lot of wrongly tagged ways out there in that case. Those blue signs are quite scarce, except in parallel to some bigger streets. But I see lots of cycle and foot ways on their own. I don't know if this issue has been discussed already. For example in my area there are a few non-numbered cycle routes (just marked with the destinations) And I found it quite nice when those were tagged as cycleway, because they are drawn differently on the map.
Stéphane Brunner, you changed bicycle=no for footways to bicycle=yes. Why? What footways do you have in mind where cycling is allowed? IMHO cycling is not allowed there.
What I ask myself:
The Signalisationsverordnung only makes a clear statement about foot- and bridleways. It says nowhere that pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. Nevertheless, the sign 2.60[3] (Radweg) is normally used to sign a way that should only be used by cyclists. Furthermore, there is a sign 2.63 (gemeinsamer Rad- und Fussweg). Where is the rule, that cycleways are only for cyclists? Otherwise, 2.63 would not be needed..
Well I wouldn't care too much in the case, that only ways signaled with those blue signs should be tagged as cycle/foot ways, because they usually only appear in parallel to some bigger road. And, quite frequently, pedestrians share the cycleway. How about this: we will tag it also as a cycle way, if it is shared use like 2.63. If it is no shared use, tag it with foot=no. Because the shared use is more frequent for all I know. But if this site should reflect the actually used tagging, then it definitely should say yes to pedestrians and horses on cycleways.
Grüsse, yours Datendelphin
Gruss, Thomas
[1] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/index.html [2] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a33.html [3] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
datendelphin wrote:
How about this: we will tag it also as a cycle way, if it is shared use like 2.63. If it is no shared use, tag it with foot=no. Because the shared use is more frequent for all I know.
Absolutely not! A cycleway is a way marked with 2.60 and should be tagged as highway=cycleway IMO. Pedestrian are not allowed on those ways except when there is not trottoir. See http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_11/a40.html, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_11/a40.html. In those cases they could be tagged as highway=cycleway,foot=yes for routing purposes.
A way signed with 2.61 is a footway and should be tagged as highway=footway. Bicycles are usually not allowed except when there is an addition (under the sign) which allows them explicitly (like "Radfahren erlaubt". In those cases pedestrian have priority and cyclist have to slow down to pedestrian speed. Those rare cases should be tagged as highway=footway,bicycle=yes. BTW a lot of car drivers do not know that contrary to a real cycleway a cyclist does not have to use such a way and is allowed to use the "street" specially if he wants to be fast.
Ways signed with 2.63.1 are common foot- and cycleways without any segregation of pedestrian and cyclists. I would advise to tag them as highway=footway,bicycle=yes because in a conflict between cyclists and pedestrian usually the pedestrian gets priority. But of course highway=bicycle,foot=yes would be valid as well.
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
Be aware that the table in http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/app2.html got mixed up, so that the correct signs are not immediately above the number in the cases of 2.61, 2.63 and 2.63.1
Jörg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Excellent resume, just some remarks.
Joerg a écrit :
datendelphin wrote:
How about this: we will tag it also as a cycle way, if it is shared use like 2.63. If it is no shared use, tag it with foot=no. Because the shared use is more frequent for all I know.
Absolutely not! A cycleway is a way marked with 2.60 and should be tagged as highway=cycleway IMO. Pedestrian are not allowed on those ways except when there is not trottoir. See http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_11/a40.html, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_11/a40.html. In those cases they could be tagged as highway=cycleway,foot=yes for routing purposes.
Exactly ;-)
A way signed with 2.61 is a footway and should be tagged as highway=footway. Bicycles are usually not allowed except when there is an addition (under the sign) which allows them explicitly (like "Radfahren erlaubt". In those cases pedestrian have priority and cyclist have to slow down to pedestrian speed. Those rare cases should be tagged as highway=footway,bicycle=yes. BTW a lot of car drivers do not know that contrary to a real cycleway a cyclist does not have to use such a way and is allowed to use the "street" specially if he wants to be fast.
OK.
Ways signed with 2.63.1 are common foot- and cycleways without any segregation of pedestrian and cyclists. I would advise to tag them as highway=footway,bicycle=yes because in a conflict between cyclists and pedestrian usually the pedestrian gets priority. But of course highway=bicycle,foot=yes would be valid as well.
for me highway=bicycle,foot=yes is not so bad but it's wrong, some other possibility will be : highway=footway,bicycle=designated highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=yes highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated but a prefer highway=footway,bicycle=yes (= highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=yes)
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 think that il should be one ot those: highway=footway,bicycle=designated highway=cycleway,foot=designated highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated
To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as highway=path.
and finally I think that your message should be added to this page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:CH:Map_Features
CU Stéphane
Be aware that the table in http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/app2.html got mixed up, so that the correct signs are not immediately above the number in the cases of 2.61, 2.63 and 2.63.1
Jörg
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
- -- Stéphane Brunner Mail : courriel@stephane-brunner.ch Jabber : stephane.brunner@jabber.fr - -- Cartographie libre - http://openstreetmap.org
Hi,
sorry, for coming in so late in the discussion, just discovered the new features page.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05:43PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner 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 think that il should be one ot those: highway=footway,bicycle=designated highway=cycleway,foot=designated highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated
To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as highway=path.
and finally I think that your message should be added to this page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:CH:Map_Features
I'm a bit upset by the footnote:
"Only ways with one of the blue signs may be tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=footway."
Datendelphin already mentioned the problem with this. This is not at all how highway=cycleway and highway=footway are used at the moment. I'd say that about 99% of the cycleways and footways I have mapped came without a sign. And judging from the map I'm not the only one there. Do you really want to resurvey all footways and cycleways in Switzerland to reflect the change in meaning as indicated in the current features page?
Isn't it possible to describe blue signes sufficiently with additional *=designated, *=yes and *=no and leave the footways and cycleway with the current fuzzy meaning (i.e mainly used by pedestrians/cyclists, no vehicles)?
Basically, I would add the following tags to exclusive-use blue signs:
bike : bicycle=designated,foot=no pedestrian : foot=designated,bicycle=no (bicycle=yes, if "Für Radfahrer frei")
and remove above comment.
Sarah
Hello Sarah,
do not be upset.
Think of it this way: if there is no traffic sign, there is no restriction. If a way is usable, then, depends on the defaults. In that case, the swiss defaults for ways on the swiss side of the border.
Interpretation is not the task of the mapper, but of the tool which uses OSM data to present the result to the map user.
If a way is obviously not fit for a certain kind of traffic, there should be a tag to mark its usability, but this is definitely no restriction tag.
'fit' means physical possibility to use by the traffic means in question.
As seen lots of times in any forum: do not tag for a renderer, do not tag things which aren't there, prefer not to map things which are there over mapping thing which aren't. Better to have a map with holes than having a map with disinformation.
At the time being, there is no means to do what I propose, see?
And what's more: if something is tagged in an old-fashioned way, there will surely be someone to remark this in the future and to correct the mistake. So, quality is a question of time.
Retag all ways. Not tomorrow, but retag them. Someday. No goal - no plan.
Too philosophic? <g> I enjoy such things.
Thomas
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:44:08 +0200 Von: Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de An: Openstreetmap Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] Access-Restrictions
Hi,
sorry, for coming in so late in the discussion, just discovered the new features page.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05:43PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner 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 think that il should be one ot those: highway=footway,bicycle=designated highway=cycleway,foot=designated highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated
To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as
highway=path.
and finally I think that your message should be added to this page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:CH:Map_Features
I'm a bit upset by the footnote:
"Only ways with one of the blue signs may be tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=footway."
Datendelphin already mentioned the problem with this. This is not at all how highway=cycleway and highway=footway are used at the moment. I'd say that about 99% of the cycleways and footways I have mapped came without a sign. And judging from the map I'm not the only one there. Do you really want to resurvey all footways and cycleways in Switzerland to reflect the change in meaning as indicated in the current features page?
Isn't it possible to describe blue signes sufficiently with additional *=designated, *=yes and *=no and leave the footways and cycleway with the current fuzzy meaning (i.e mainly used by pedestrians/cyclists, no vehicles)?
Basically, I would add the following tags to exclusive-use blue signs:
bike : bicycle=designated,foot=no pedestrian : foot=designated,bicycle=no (bicycle=yes, if "Für Radfahrer frei")
and remove above comment.
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
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
I did update the wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:CH:Map_Features
But I don't know what tagging is correct for the "Reitweg" in German or "allée d’équitation" in french. Because a OSM bridleway may be used by bicycles and pedestrians according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway "intended for use by pedestrians and horse riders"
Any suggestions?
datendelphin wrote:
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
I would agree that for 2.63 and 2.63 foot=designated could be better than foot=yes.
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.
Yes, it's odd. But according this logic even cars would be allowed on cycleways which can't be the case. Therefore I would assume that a judge would rule that horses and cars are not allowed on cycleways. But the text in the law is not clear about this.
Jörg
-
datendelphin -
Joerg -
Sarah Hoffmann -
Stéphane Brunner -
Thomas Ineichen -
Thomas Meller