joerg.maillist at gmx.net
Sun Aug 16 20:06:01 CEST 2009
> 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.
Absolutely not! A cycleway is a way marked with 2.60 and should be
tagged as highway=cycleway IMO. Pedestrian are not allowed on those
ways except when there is not trottoir. See
<http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_11/a40.html>. In those cases they
could be tagged as highway=cycleway,foot=yes for routing purposes.
A way signed with 2.61 is a footway and should be tagged as
highway=footway. Bicycles are usually not allowed except when there is
an addition (under the sign) which allows them explicitly (like
"Radfahren erlaubt". In those cases pedestrian have priority and
cyclist have to slow down to pedestrian speed. Those rare cases should
be tagged as highway=footway,bicycle=yes.
BTW a lot of car drivers do not know that contrary to a real cycleway
a cyclist does not have to use such a way and is allowed to use the
"street" specially if he wants to be fast.
Ways signed with 2.63.1 are common foot- and cycleways without any
segregation of pedestrian and cyclists. I would advise to tag them as
highway=footway,bicycle=yes because in a conflict between cyclists and
pedestrian usually the pedestrian gets priority. But of course
highway=bicycle,foot=yes would be valid as well.
A way signed with 2.63 is a common foot- and cycleway with a
segregation between cyclists and pedestrian (at least a painted line,
sometimes a kerb stone). I would recommend to tag those as
highway=cycleway,foot=yes to support the fact that on those ways a
cyclist is not expected to find any pedestrian on "his" lane. And to
separte this case from 2.63.1
Be aware that the table in
<http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/741_21/app2.html> got mixed up, so that
the correct signs are not immediately above the number in the cases of
2.61, 2.63 and 2.63.1
More information about the talk-ch