[talk-ch] Access-Restrictions

Stéphane Brunner courriel at stephane-brunner.ch
Sat Aug 15 15:17:58 CEST 2009


-----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#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
>>>>   
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk-ch mailing list
>>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch


- --
Stéphane Brunner
Mail : courriel at stephane-brunner.ch
Jabber : stephane.brunner at jabber.fr
- --
Annuaire de logiciel libre - http://framasoft.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqGtYYACgkQs5/Hk9HWqUyAQACcDDG1rSjaz+PQwJRroB+deVva
u7MAoK1GCNYAvFyIwFfpFYuc1ohMqY3s
=OqMl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: courriel.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20090815/bc942c14/attachment-0001.vcf>


More information about the talk-ch mailing list