mailinglist at osm.datendelphin.net
Sun Aug 16 09:13:43 CEST 2009
Thomas Ineichen wrote:
> 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.
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 (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.
>  http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/index.html
>  http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a33.html
>  http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
More information about the talk-ch