Foot=* access tagging on signed cycle "only" ways in the UK

Communities United Kingdom
1

Where we have highway=cycleway ways explicitly signed as being for cycles only, tagging of foot access in practice and the wiki are a little inconsistent.

The signs used are blue circular regulatory signs, but are not enforceable in the same way as many other regulatory signs as s.36 RTA 1988 does not apply.

Tagging as foot=no conveys the intent, but as it isn’t really a meaningful prohibition some people remove it or even replace it with a potentially unhelpful foot=yes. I would like to suggest replacing it with foot=discouraged and updating the wiki if the UK community are happy with this.

The most common sign in use here is, TSRGD diagram 955 “Route for use by pedal cycles and electric scooters being used in a trial, only (not intended for pedestrians)”. It is commonly used on dedicated cycle “only” tracks.

The other sign used is TSRGD diagram 957 “Route comprising two ways for use by pedal cycles and electric scooters being used in a trial, only and by pedestrians only, with those ways separated by a solid white line, or by physical means”. Where the ways are separated by more than just paint, they are often mapped as separate ways in OSM.

What would be the preferred option for the highway=cycleway?

  • foot=no
  • foot=discouraged
  • (no foot tag)
0 voters
2

I have been tagging these as foot=discouraged when I come across them

1 Like
3

Are pedestrians more discouraged or less discouraged to use a cycleway than a carriageway?

4

There are explicit signs on some cycle tracks. There aren’t any equivalent signs on carriageways. Like hgv=discouraged, this only relates to official signs which are (effectively) advisory and where existing tagging seems a little inconsistent.

5

What I’m asking is, if there’s a cycleway next to a highway=primary, where should a pedestrian walk?

Or alternatively, if there are a separate footway and a cycleway next to each other, does some data consumer need extra help for correct pedestrian routing?

6

foot=discouraged and removing the tag entirely both seem fine? I would (possibly naively) assume that routers already discourage use of highway=cycleway, making the former redundant.

But then I guess if you don’t put a tag it invites someone else to “fill it in" with whatever their understanding of the law is.

1 Like