[talk-ch] Access-Restrictions

datendelphin mailinglist at osm.datendelphin.net
Mon Aug 17 21:40:02 CEST 2009


Hi Joerg

Well this is what I was trying to say. As you wrote:
> 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 only am of the opinion, that it should say foot=designated (same
applies for 2.63.1) because it is also on the blue sign. Following the
logic that blue sign = designated

The only other thing I was trying to say, that I didn't know about the
rule with the blue signs. I just followed the "usual tagging" and that
does not show too much correlation with those signs :) I just counted
around this area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.18478&lon=8.45062&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF
which I know a bit, about 20 foot ways. Probably all of then wrong to my
knowledge. I will check them.

Now for [1] VRV 40,2 I could argue that, for OSM, and for routing
purposes, it still is safe to assume pedestrians are allowed. Why?
(Sorry this gets longer) Let's consider two cases: the "way" (meant OSM
way) has a no sidewalk or foot way as in VRV 40,2. Then pedestrians are
allowed anyway. (I think that case is intended by the lawmaker for
cycleways marked with the blue sign, which run in parallel to a road or
completely detached to any other road) Now the other case: There IS a
sidewalk or foot way as in VRV 40,2. Usual case if the cycleway is not
marked with a blue sign, but with the yellow stripes, kind of "lane" for
bicycles, Velostreifen in German. In that case either this sidewalk is
part of the OSM way, or there is a second OSM way , right next to it,
specifically for pedestrians. In the second case, routing should choose
the right thing anyway because of the "designation" in OSM. OK I know
it's hairy and not safe.

In conclusion: probably best to tag cycleways with the appropriate
foot=... in all cases that could be unclear other ways.

And for horses: Note that [2] SSV 33,1 does not disallow any other
traffic on cycleways, therefor horses are allowed? It's kind of odd.
But they definitely are not allowed on foot ways according to SSV 33,2

[1] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_11/a40.html
[2] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/741_21/a33.html

I gave a try to another edit of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
don't know if that makes sense.

Now I try to incorporate those blue signs to the CH features page

good night
Datendelphin





More information about the talk-ch mailing list