[talk-ch] Access-Restrictions

Thomas Ineichen osm.mailinglist at t-i.ch
Sat Aug 15 23:21:43 CEST 2009


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




More information about the talk-ch mailing list