[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 7 17:15:50 UTC 2013

On 07.10.2013 19:08, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote:
>> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>>> On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
>>> indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
>>> as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
>>> move at walking speed on this section".
>> As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.
>> In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always
>> have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed
>> use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are
>> really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is
>> needed.
>> Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not
>> need bicycle=dismount.

> Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it
> were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a
> safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as well. 
> I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow footway
> of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.  Not only
> was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway and the
> river was only a little over a meter tall.  This is adequate for a
> pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the railing and
> into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from Richmond at the
> present, so I can't show a photograph.

Wonder if this sign would be needed if the footway would just be signed
as footway (highway=path,foot=designated,vehicle=no) without any extras
signs for bicycle ?


More information about the Tagging mailing list