osm.mailinglist at t-i.ch
Sat Aug 15 23:21:43 CEST 2009
> 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.
The Signalisationsverordnung states in Article 33:
"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 (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..
More information about the talk-ch