This misses my point. OSM access tags should not depend on specifics of countries’ legal codes. They ought to be interpretable world-wide. It is almost impossible for data consumers to work under a model that requires knowledge of the legal situation in each place, especially because it is not limited just to 200-ish countries, but also there are federal countries where the road rules differ between states.
The specific difference here appears to be that Swiss law treats mofa as a specialisation of bicycle, whereas the OSM wiki treats mofa as a specialisation of single-tracked motor vehicle (i.e. motorcycle). So while it makes sense following Swiss law that SSV 2.04 or signs containing it doesn’t exclude mofa, because mofa is not motorcycle, it doesn’t make that much sense from an OSM data consumer perspective, IMO, and so they are likely to get it wrong. Tagging the other way around, like I suggested, would be more likely to be well-understood, without changing the meaning.
Don’t worry, there is no appetite for this change, so I’ll just keep tagging the existing way.
I think applying this too strictly would sometimes end up with absurd outcomes, and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging as path when it seems like a path probably works better. There are many, many instances where 2.14 in particular gets tagged as path because it’s wrong to tag it as service (if it’s not used for “access” to anything, which is how service is defined in the wiki), it’s wrong to tag as track (if it’s not agricultural/forestry-related), and it’s visually a path, not a road. This is especially true when signed in conjunction with physical barriers than make it obvious that multi-track vehicles cannot pass and/or when the prohibition has no exceptions. It seems strange that something that, without knowledge of the sign (but otherwise perfect knowledge), someone would have tagged as path, must be tagged as service merely because motor vehicles are banned from it!
