In Japan, there is no common tagging scheme for bicycle=* yet. I’m just proposing a new idea to distinguish between bicycle=designated and bicycle=yes on the talk-ja mailing list.
There are two types of signs in Japan that indicate bicycles are allowed on footways. These roads have legally different traffic rules.
(1) A “For bicycles and pedestrians only” sign (a sign with a picture of a bicycle and pedestrians)
(2) A “For pedestrians only” sign with a “Except bicycles” auxiliary sign (see photo)
In the proposal, they are distinguished by bicycle=*:
(1) → highway=footway/pedestrian + bicycle=designated
(2) → highway=footway/pedestrian + bicycle=yes
I’d map that as a cycleway:right=lane; cycleway:right:oneway=yes. Notwithstanding, that doing so, might make casual cyclists end up there. To consider hazards is not fun: Imagine a family with kids on holidays getting routed there. This especially, when realizing that openstreetmap data gets used as the one and only source of information more often than welcome.
Back on Topic: In a Vienna Convention country, this might very well carry a mandatory sign, the meaning of would be, people are to cycle on the designated lane, and not on the carriage way there. There really is not more to this. Anybody disagrees?
Yes, there is often subjectivity to where cyclists should go – on this expressway, I often pass by cyclists enjoying themselves on recumbent bikes. However, my point is that some bike lanes are pointedly discreet.
Within this region, a normal bike lane would be festooned with bike-related signs, but here it’s just the bare minimum that the local authorities can get away with. They wanted to prohibit cycling and walking, but cycling advocates pointed to state law that only allows them to prohibit cyclists and pedestrians from freeways, not expressways. As a compromise, they took down the prohibition signs but don’t facilitate non-motorized traffic.
Though this is an extreme case, I think it’s on topic in the sense that the presence of cyclist-oriented accommodations is a major factor in bicycle=designated tagging in the U.S. The original post asked for perspectives from outside Germany, but it didn’t say all the responses have to come from the same planet.
I wound map this as shoulder=yes together with shoulder:width.
As the Wiki says:
In many legislations, it is allowed to ride a bicycle on the shoulder if it is present, which renders even slim shoulders a useful safety feature for cyclists - same for hikers.
Yes, this does address the question of how to describe the physical characteristics of this lane. In terms of access restriction tagging, something along the lines of bicycle=yes or shoulder:bicycle=yes would be more appropriate than bicycle=designated or shoulder:bicycle=designated for the reasons above. Or maybe discouraged, but those typically have “not advised” signs around here. In other words, the absence of a sign can sometimes be as meaningful as the presence of one.
Following “map what is on the ground” I would indeed go for bicycle=yes or shoulder:bicycle=yes, discouraged only if there are sign or marking indicating that.
In Croatia, one would use bicycle=designated if it is specially marked (either by coloring on the surface, or by special vertical sign B40 or B42 ). This picture shows both the surface coloring and the sign B42:
bicycle=yes would usually be used where it is not forbidden (and yet is physically possible) to drive a bicycle, but where it is not specially signed.
That would happen:
outside the areas that are expected to have markings/signalization i.e. mostly outside of (developed parts of) the city. For example track in the forest, paths on embankment etc.
when in the city, and there are no markings for cyclists, but they are still allowed to use the road. That would usually not (need to) be marked (as it is default in Croatia, see below), but sometimes is done (I guess) to mark lower-traffic roads as preferred for cyclists.
when it is very old mapping, from times before bicycle=designated become popular.
If there is designated (e.g. marked as noted above) cycle path along the street (or cycle lane on the street), the cyclists must always use those.
Legally, no. They may onlycross cycleways in shortest way possible, after making sure it is safe.
(In practice however, they move unsanctioned by law as they wish. Cyclists also very often move as they wish, but they do get sanctioned from time to time )
Cyclist must use the right side of the road if there is no separate cycling track/lane on or alongside the road.
If there is separate cycling track/lane, they must use that, and are not allowed to use the regular (part of the) road.
Cyclists are forbidden to use the sidewalks (unless of course it is specially marked as mixed footway+cycleway, i.e. B42)
What I meant is that it’s very interesting to get all the replies from situation in different countries, but it is not easy to compare them in the current format of a discussion. Could be helpful to put them into a table format. What do you think?
This might be helpful to keep track of the thread and I will not prevent anyone from doing so.
But you should keep in mind that these may only be individual opinions and may give a distorted picture of the actual use in these countries.
Btw. I would like to thank everyone who has participated here. It was very helpful to get an impression of the international use.
)
