[talk-ch] Access-Restrictions

datendelphin mailinglist at osm.datendelphin.net
Sat Aug 15 12:16:19 CEST 2009


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

Feel free to revert things where you do not agree with my arguments.


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#Switzerland
> If there is a mistake please correct it.
> CU
> Stéph
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

More information about the talk-ch mailing list