[talk-ch] Access-Restrictions

Stéphane Brunner courriel at stephane-brunner.ch
Sun Aug 16 22:05:43 CEST 2009

Hash: SHA1


Excellent resume, just some remarks.

Joerg a écrit :
> datendelphin wrote:
>> 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/d/sr/741_11/a40.html>,
> <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.
Exactly ;-)

> 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.
for me highway=bicycle,foot=yes is not so bad but it's wrong, some other
 possibility will be :
but a prefer highway=footway,bicycle=yes (=

> 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
I think that il should be one ot those:

To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as highway=path.

and finally I think that your message should be added to this page :


> Be aware that the table in
> <http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/app2.html>,
> <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
> Jörg
> _______________________________________________
> 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
- --
Cartographie libre - http://openstreetmap.org
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

-------------- 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/20090816/4c471c9d/attachment-0001.vcf>

More information about the talk-ch mailing list