Highway=pedestrian, bicycle=designated

What does this combination of tags mean? Is it worth documenting? (It’s not mentioned on the Wiki) Has it been used to “translate” a specific traffic sign into OSM tagging, maybe something like pedestrian and cycle zone? When you map a highway=pedestrian, how do you decide between bicycle=yes and bicycle=designated?

More generally, when do you put bicycle=designated on a street? (unclassified, residential, …)

The Versatiles Colorful style renders streets with bicycle=designated differently so that makes them easy to spot (example here). In an area I am looking at, I can’t make sense of which pedestrian streets have bicycle=designated and which ones have yes. Some pedestrian streets don’t have a bicycle tag at all, and I’ve noticed that OSM-based routers make different default assumptions for biycle access on pedestrian, so adding explicit tags is probably a useful activity.

I checked the only occurrence in my area and it was a tagging mistake. Someone tagged designated instead of dismount. I don’t know if any sign explaining this tagging in German speaking countries.

In Germany this is the common sign combi: https://trafficsigns.osm-verkehrswende.org/?signs=DE%3A242.1|DE%3A1022-10


I would argue that foot=designated is implied by highway=pedestrian, no need to tag it explicitly. With this sign, bicycles are allowed, so bicycle=yes. The way/area is not “the way to go” for cyclists, so it’s not bicycle=designated.

I can imagine situations where cyclists are supposed to use a pedestrian way or area. Particularly when cycling (trekking bike) in German and Italian cities I was often forced off the road onto the sidewalk or to a separate pedestrian way/area, not part of this road. Only last year’s trip in Italy we noticed that the signage for cyclists in these situations is improving, but not yet sufficient. By far.

speaking of Italy, cyclists are allowed by default in pedestrian areas, no additional sign required (not on sidewalks).

I think this will naturally differ by country. In the U.S., we’ve taken designated to mean more or less “designed for” or “intended for” in many contexts. It’s a more holistic standard than in some other countries. If we had to strictly map bicycle=* to standard MUTCD signs, we would do something like what’s documented on the wiki:

no yes designated
No Bicycles Bicycles Permitted Bike Route

However, this only works in theory. Bicycles Permitted is relatively rare and only posted on dedicated trails or sidepaths, never in a situation where bikes share the road with traffic or where a pedestrian mall has plenty of room for all non-motorized traffic. Bike Route isn’t just an access sign; it can also indicate lcn=yes, or that the street is a bike boulevard. In practice, permission for non-motorized vehicles isn’t consistently signposted, and few off-road signs adhere to any standard to begin with.

1 Like

I agree! I just copied the tagging directly from the traffic sign tool.

@tordans Why did you add “foot=designated” here? :slight_smile:

I would expect road sized structure, marked as combined footway and cycleway (either with segregation if segregated=yes or with no segregation between traffic modes if segregated=yes)

If bicycle traffic is merely allowed or exempt from ban on vehicle traffic then it bicycle=yes

Never, though if road has say sharrows/bicycle lanes then I would not remove it.