Recently, StreetComplete added the possibility to tag "Footway, but cycling is allowed (by a sign)" as an additional option to “Designated shared-use path”. This addressed a need for tagging in the german community, but questions arose if this feature should be enabled on a per-country basis, so I want to ask users from around the world to chime in and tell us how this is handled in other legislatures.
I will describe the situation in germany:
Designated Bike- and Footway
Footway, cycling allowed
foot=designated + bicycle=designated
foot=designated + bicycle=yes
This is a designated way for pedestrians and for people cycling. Cyclists and pedestrians are equal in rights and need to be considerate of each other.
This is a designated way for pedestrians, but cyclists are allowed. They are however only “guests” on this way. Cyclists need to be considerate of pedestrians.
So, fellow mappers around the world, does your country have something similar? (Either in legislation or at least in tagging practice)
Do you make a distinction if a way is “Designated for cyclists and pedestrians” and “Designated for pedestrians, but cyclists are allowed”?
Should StreetComplete offer both “Designated shared-use path” and “Footway, but a sign allows cycling” in your country, or should one of them be removed to avoid confusion?
Hi, for The Czech republic: the description in your chart fits with one exception: “If on a sidewalk, cyclists may use the sidewalk” is legally valid for both cases (Designated Bike- and Footway and Footway, cycling allowed). The usage of the bike-way or sidewalk is not mandatory in both cases.
Nederland does not have the shared footway/cycleway sign.
A signed footway is pedestrian only, foot=designated is implicit. Cycling on a footway is only allowed by signed exception, bicycle=yes.
A signed cycleway is implicitly bicycle=designated. Pedestrians can (and must) use the cycleway where no sidewalk or adjacent footway is present. This is the general rule, no sign needed. It is my understanding that this rule holds for most countries, so that pedestrian routers will use the cycleway if there is no adjacent footway.
Situations where both foot=designated and bicycle=designated on one path are unusual but may occur in e.g. nature areas with operator signage.
Thanks for your input! I’ve removed the part of the table referencing the sidewalks, since we really only want to know if such a distinction is made in a country, not what that distinction might mean legally. Sorry for the confusion!
So, to be clear: You say that for the Czech Republic, it would be neccesary to have both options available in SC?
Thanks!
So, even if uncommon, you think SC should offer both “Designated shared use path” and “Footway, but a sign allows cycling”? Or is it soooooo uncommon that it would make sense to remove the shared path option and let the user leave a OSM-note instead?
I think both options are seldom to never applicable in Nederland.
They wouldn’t hurt either, unless the “offer” keeps coming back, in which case people would get annoyed with SC very rapidly!
Ooh, are we sharing signs? A bazillion U.S. city councils would like a word:
In seriousness, bike-riding on sidewalks is usually a matter of local ordinance but very rarely signposted. When it is signposted, it’s almost always in order to prohibit bikes rather than allow them explicitly. On other paths besides sidewalks, bike-riding is generally unregulated in my experience.
In Croatia, it is either signposted to be a designated (segregated or shared) footway+cycleway (see B40 to B44 signs), or it is not.
If it is not, it is forbidden for bicycles to use the footway (they must use the right side of the road instead).
There is no sign for “Footway, but a sign allows cycling”
Maybe I should note that SC offers a wide variety of other options, such as “Footway (whether cycling is allowed depens on legislation)” and others.
From what you have said, I would assume that it is a possibility at least that in the U.S., a situation where a sign explicitly allows cycling on something that is otherwise a footway is possible (I would even argue that the sign you shared would be an instance of that, because if one needs to dismount when passing a pedestrian, it’s not bicycle=designated), and if there are a gazillion councils that may decide whatever (the joys of not beeing bound by the vienna convention ), I take away from that that both options may occur and thus should be available.
Pedestrian way sign with allowed cycling (not mandatory) is in theory illegal since 2015. But in practice sometimes present. Mostly in smaller towns, villages.
I can confirm that Greece has the sign shown on the left in existence. It is very UNcommon. I can only ever recall seeing one on the island of Crete but I’m sure that others exist. Due to budget funding there is not a lot of money for re-signage. The entire Greek signage system for the whole country needs redoing.This was discussed many years ago but dropped due to cost. Greeks are very used to asking other Greeks for directions. It is met with zero surprise !! Unless the sign is in place it would be wise never to mark it as a cycle/walkway. Such a thing would be incorrect despite appearances
Yes, for better or worse, you can assume that anything is possible in America. In practice, whether something is tagged as a footway, cycleway, or path here depends much more on what it’s called, where it’s located, and how it’s built than on any access restrictions. The community here still grapples with the implications for routing on a regular basis.
We do have some standardized signs that seem analogous to the ones above. You can find this sign on shared-use paths, but it’s as rare as segregated paths:
This is the sign affirming that bikes are permitted. I’ve never seen it in person, but apparently it can be posted alongside signs for pedestrians, rollerbladers, and horseback riders where a shared-use path forks into two or more dedicated paths:
In theory, it could also serve as a sign allowing bikes onto a sidewalk, but it would be unintuitive for this purpose, so a locality would be more likely to post a custom sign spelling out the situation. In the absence of such a sign, I’d expect “Footway (whether cycling is allowed depends on legislation)” to be the correct choice.
I don’t think think I’ve ever seen a US sign use a word when they could use ten instead (except STOP). And of course usually all in capital letters to minimise readability.
Is this is so localised as to be City Council level would it be work having a way of tagging it on the boundary relation? I know we don’t map legislation as a general rule, but that’s normally when it stays consistent for more than a few miles.
I would note that the Vienna convention on road signs lists both variants of the shared cycle- footway (segregated D 11a and non-segregated D11b), and includes text on the compulsory nature of these (and of the single transport mode variants). Except if a signature country explicitly opted out I would assume that they always will have the “(legal) concept”, maybe it would better to ask if they are in real life use.
Within the “Inner Fire District”, only children under the age of 16 are permitted to cycle on sidewalks
Within the “City Center”, no one is permitted to cycle on the sidewalks
Everywhere else, everyone is permitted to cycle on the sidewalks
Signage to this effect is sparse to non-existant. I guess the officials just expect you to know where the “City Center” and “Inner Fire District” begin and end. The former is also within the latter, so the rules are in conflict. I assume the second rule overrides the first but it’s not clear.
At any rate, sidewalks are definitely designated for pedestrians first with bicycles allowed only secondarily so the concept you are asking about exists. Where present, dedicated bicycle lanes and paths are always a better option for cycling than a sidewalk designed for pedestrians.
The “Footway, but a sign allows cycling” case is somewhat common in the Netherlands in shopping areas in city centres (usually in the zonal variant). Most of these are probably highway=pedestrian instead of highway=footway.
The “Designated shared use path” case is not a valid traffic sign in the Netherlands but some Dutch traffic sign manufacturers are nevertheless selling such signs (example).
), I take away from that that both options may occur and thus should be available.
”
In practice, whether something is tagged as a