[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Mark Goodge mark at good-stuff.co.uk
Thu Dec 10 21:49:32 UTC 2020

On 10/12/2020 21:17, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne <martin at templot.com 
> <mailto:martin at templot.com>> wrote:
>     Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually
>     banned?
> I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of 
> cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/113w <https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/113w>

A lot of those (well, all the ones I've looked at, so far) though, are 
very short sections of way where a cycle route crosses a highway and 
pedestrians and cyclists have separate crossings, or where motor 
vehicles are not permitted to pass between adjacent streets but cycles 
are, or the cycle part of a segregated shared path.

For example, this:


is this:


So I don't think that there's a legal prohibition on pedestrians using 
the cycle crossing. It's just that there's no reason why they should, 
since the pedestrian crossing follows the desire line and is parallel to 
the cycle crossing.

Similarly, this:


is this:


Cyclists can pass through the gaps, and pedestrians can move between the 
streets on the pavement. It's just motor vehicles that are blocked.

And this:


is this:


which is just a segregated shared path (as indicated by the road sign).

In all these cases, the dedicated cycleway is either very short, or runs 
alongside a footway, or both. It's unlikely that there is any actual 
legal restriction on pedestrians using the cycleway part (especially 
given that there are no prohibition signs, which would be necessary for 
any such restriction to be enforceable), it's just that there's no 
reason why pedestrians would normally want to. But that doesn't mean it 
should be tagged as "foot":"no". I think that's possibly just tagging 
for the router.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list