Does your country have the (legal) concept of "Designated for pedestrians, but cyclists allowed"?

I’ve heard rumours, doubtless scurrilous, that some motorists don’t either :slight_smile:

However, I don’t think that even official signs which are effectively reminders of what road users should be doing anyway should necessarily result in changes to tags on the highway. For example, we have TSRGD diagram 2934 (keep your distance) and the permitted addition of “please drive carefully” to 2402.1 and 2403.1 (effectively traffic_sign=city_limit).

1 Like

The thing is the sign D 5 has a very precise definition:

Sign D, 5 “CIMPULSORY FOOTPATH” shall notify pedestrians that the path at the entrance to which it is placed is reserved for them, and shall notify other road users that they are not entitled to use that path. Pedestrians shall be required to use the path if the path is running along a carriageway, cycle track or track for riders on horseback and leading into the same direction.

Is the question about the general concept of having a dedicated footway and allowing bicycle use, or is it about the exact sign combination? If it is the later then, only countries that are signatories of the relevant conventions may apply (because only there does the sign have a well-defined meaning) and there the question would only apply to ways signposted accordingly and not to ways that are not.

To be clear, these signs don’t normally appear on what people would think of as “the highway” - we’re talking about places where people are allowed to cycle (yes or permissive). Some of those will be on roads (but signs like this won’t tend to be there); many will not.

The Aire Valley Towpath example linked above requests specific changes to behaviour above and beyond the general “don’t be a dick” language in the highway code. Is that something worth capturing in OSM, and if so, how?

For pedestrian ways and footways I would rather not get this question all the time.

Keep in mind that theese changes effect mainly the Cycleway overlay, where you yourself make the call to change something rather than beeing asked. The new option “cycling allowed on the sidewalk by a sign” does also appear in the regular cycleway quest, but only in places where that quest would appear anyway.

1 Like

For that example, I would be more inclined to map the board as a node next to the towpath with tourism=information + information=board + board_type=rules + operator=Canal & River Trust + operator:wikidata=Q5030960. The only thing it seem to state which isn’t part of the Highway Code’s DBAD is that cycle access is permissive.

If there’s signage at bridges and other narrow points asking reminding cyclists to give way (which I think I’ve seen, but can’t find images of), perhaps that’s close enough in meaning to add a highway=give_way node?

Hopefully the towpath is already tagged with something like highway=footway + towpath=yes + bicycle=permissive + segregated=no + operator=Canal & River Trust + operator:wikidata=Q5030960. That should provide enough information for people who need to check the rules to reach the CRT Towpath Code

For Cycleway overlay (but also related quests). See this StreetComplete issue #4913 for background and PR #5575 for actual implementetation details.

There are several different answers (picture in the top of the linked PR changed, see below), but e.g. Cycleway overlay answers most relevant to this issue (for e.g. existing highway=path + foot=designated) are:

  1. Designated shared-use path (which adds bicycle=designated + segregated=no)
  2. Separated bike and foot path (adds bicycle=designated + segregated=yes)
  3. Footway, but a sign allows cycling (gets changed to highway=footway + foot=designated + bicycle=yes + bicycle:signed=yes)

This thread is about that 3rd use case (in which countries it makes sense to offer that answer).

Will selecting the third option (footway but a sign allows cycling) retag a highway=pedestrian to highway=footway?

Thanks. For me the options read slightly differently but similar. For Scotland, removing the option “Footway, but a sign allows cycling” is probably fine because it’s easily confused with “Shared-use path”.

A lot of footpaths are simply “Not designated for cyclists (cycling may still be allowed)”. Knowing whether cycling is allowed or not requires knowing the law, which a lot of StreetComplete users wouldn’t if they don’t cycle or are visiting from elsewhere. So mappers can just add that manually outside of SC.

We also have signs asking cyclists to be considerate to pedestrians on shared use paths but I don’t think access tags would be used for that.


Do you make a distinction if a way is “Designated for cyclists and pedestrians” and “Designated for pedestrians, but cyclists are allowed”?

This distinction is made in Norway.

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?

Both signs that explicitly allow or disallow cyclists from footways exist.

The “default” is for cyclists to be allowed on footways, no sign needed. Cyclists are however second class citizens of footways, and need to take extra care.

1 Like

No, because a highway=pedestrian is not selectable in this overlay.

1 Like

In Greece, in accordance to the most recent law and municipal regulations, cyclists “can be allowed” on pedestrian streets if the density of pedestrians is such that they can safely move alongside bicycles.
In any case, the speed of bicycles on footpaths cannot be greater than that of pedestrians.
Even cars are allowed to pass if their destination is legally operating private parking lots on the pedestrian street (rare but it is allowed by the recent law :thinking:)

But does Greece have a special sign indicating that? Because if there is no specific sign, then that use case falls under “Footway, no explicit sign about cycling (whether it is allowed depends on legislation” StreetComplete answer (which is always present in all countries)

just out of curiosity is there any speed limit(on sidewalks) or any laws regarding this.In the uk you usually get some idiot cyclists bombing down the pavement(sidewalk)

That is the usual case in Australia, but the legislation varies depending on the State, from anybody is allowed to ride on footpaths (sidewalks), through only children but an adult can ride with them, to not at all.

There are also signposted shared paths, cyclist-only paths, & no bikes allowed, so I don’t know how you could achieve a one size fits all result?

but this is on a shared path with foot=designated and bicycle=designated, right? Or is it a footway? Around here, the shared paths have signposted maxspeed=10, and signposted maxspeed=20 when it is a highway=cycleway (absurd as it may seem, given that you are not obligated to have your bike equipped with a speedometer, so how should you know at what speed you go?)

Australia was actually one of the first examples we encountered for how we should implement this.

so I don’t know how you could achieve a one size fits all result?

Let’s go through this :slight_smile:

You see a road with are sidewalk, where cycling is usually allowed, but no sign.
In the CyclewayOverlay (the one where you choose an option for each side of the road), you’d choose None. If it was mapped seperately and you are therefore in the separate cycleway overlay, you’d choose Footway (if cycling is allowed depends on legislation)

There are also signposted shared paths,

You’d choose Designated shared-use path in the separate overlay and explicitly shared use sidewalk in the cycleway quest.

cyclist-only paths,

You’d choose Exclusive cycleway in the separate overlay, and Cycleway in the quest.

no bikes allowed

You’d choose A sign explicitly prohibits cycling


From Austria (Capitol is called Vienna, like in the convention with same name):

Sidewalks (Gehsteige, Trottoirs, pavements) are designated (gewidmet) for pedestrians, but they must not be rode with bicycles (other than children on bike-like-toys.) Additionally, sidewalks must not be signed (parsimony in signage), designation only can be gleaned from construction.

As far as I know, there is no legal way to allow cycling on a sidewalk (Gehsteig) – The only possibility for the municipality is to turn the sidewalk into a footway (Gehweg) (by signage) separate from the street (ignoring construction): Only then they can administer dual-use (segregated or not, mandatory or optional does not matter.)

In origin it was a footway/cycleway with motor_vehicle=destination for all the beach operators along the way. As the direction sign above the warning sign says it’s since a few years part of the BI-6 Cyclovia Adriatica (it’s got more names such as Corridoio Verde). The section converts at both ends to a full cycleway, southbound to Cerrano, with a separate path thru the pines for foot (not that bike only impresses anyone on foot). New signs have been popping up with distances to the next destination like here Scerne @ 5.

At max 10 it’s a true joke without speedometer when there’s these… obligated use.

segregated: image
shared: image

Cyclists ignore and go to the road when busy and the cops are totally fine with that, not to speak of the rollercoaster experience because there’s every 15 meter a lowering for the old driveways when the sidewalk was only sidewalk.

Anyway, the sign posted infers it’s a footway with bike exception and penalties if breaking the ‘rules’.

The first sign is fun because in the opposite direction the foot and bike are not switched so you see foot walking on cycleway and v.v. There no painted symbols on the old ways to say which is which, only color, if you know, and not daltonic.

I’ve never come across a sidewalk with its own posted speed limit. Anything is possible, but I’d imagine it would be rather confusing, since speed limit signs for the roadway are often posted on the far side of the sidewalk. I also haven’t come across an ordinance setting a specific speed limit on sidewalks, but there are laws about operating bikes at a safe speed.

Some shared use paths and dedicated bike paths have posted speed limits. You can also find speed limits for recreational trails. For example, one park near me has a speed limit for cyclists of 15 miles per hour, or 5 miles per hour when passing a pedestrian or horse.

Yes, apparently it largely depends on whether a bicycle is being regulated as a vehicle, a pedestrian, a device (or toy perhaps), or its own special thing, or all of the above. Electric bikes confound the situation further. Here’s a summary of state laws, with the big caveat that most states allow localities to override the restrictions, as you’ve seen in your area:

Hilariously, half of that essay of a sign I posted earlier may be in conflict with state law.

No. Speed limits in the UK (or more accurately the offence of speeding) only apply to motor vehicles. There may be the odd byelaw in parks and rules for permissive paths on private land.