To make matters more complex, paper and practice and also differ. Here in Germany, pure cycleways often manifest themselves as lanes on a carriageway and as their own ways are pretty rare, only as a sidepath to a road, in fact, and only when it’s difficult for pedestrians mix with cyclists due to width constraints and a parallel (foot)way is provided.
Every other cycleway in Germany is signed as 240 (shared foot- and cycleway) and 241 (segregated foot- and cycleway) because 237 is too restrictive with out current laws. It’s particularly true if it’s paved with asphalt like a regular street which further shift it towards a way built primarily for cyclists than one built for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Now, “shared-use” path (i.e. a cycleway you can walk on) isn’t entirely comparable to a street with no sidewalk because you’re given greater rights as a pedestrian (in that you can use the whole path instead of being legally you to the edge) but in practice to the benefit of everyone, you behave like in a typical street i.e. slower traffic (i.e. pedestrians) is to the side, faster traffic (i.e. cyclists) in the middle and really, details like these also is out of scope for OSM.
The segregated kind becomes even more complex if you look at some of these paths:
- In some of these, the cycleway itself is fairly prominent compared to the footway, such as double the size than the latter if not wider. By any measure, it’s a cycleway first, footway second.
- If a foot- and cycleway are segregated by a kerb from each other, how would you describe it then: As a segregated “shared-use” path or as a cycleway with a sidewalk attached?
Another problem is also what consists of a “shared” path since Germany not only has the aforementioned 240 but also 239+1022-10 (footways which permits cyclists). The main difference is that, as a legal footway / pedestrian infrastructure, cyclists have to give way to pedestrians (even moreso than with the other example) and also must cycle at walking speed (akin to a pedestrian or living street) whereas a proper cycleway allows you to go as fast as you need to be.[1]
And of course, this isn’t unique to Germany either because there are many other legislations which have such sidewalks, either implicitly (such as being wide enough) or explicitly (signed as such).
Off-topic
And really, the idea of a “shared-use path” is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that something build for cyclists means that pedestrians automatically need to be excluded unless otherwise signed. In truth, many roads are built (sometimes modified if older) for cars but are legally usable for pedestrians even with a lack of footway unless explicitly signed as such.
It’s also why I’m a bit envious to the Netherlands because their cycleways permit pedestrians by default and only are forbidden to walk on if explicitly signed so or a parallel footway exists — because cycleways there are seen more as proper streets there.
Not that it really matters in this discussion since the tagging thereof has been long established as
highway=footway+bicycle=yesand is unlikely to change soon. ↩︎