[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 13:18:10 BST 2009


2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>:
> Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
>>>>>> highway=footway (not suitable)
>>>>>> bicycle=dedicated (signed)
>>>>> A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
>>>
>>> why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: "Fahrräder frei"
>
>>That's yes, not designated.
>
> Silly question, maybe: but, what does "yes" actually mean? Everyone seems
> to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in
> practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case
> ("Fahrräder frei" marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to
> use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right?

they have the right, but it is less strong than on a cycleway, the
pedestrians have the right-of-way over the cyclists, and cyclists must
not drive faster than x km/h and be more cautious than on a cycleway.
It is a different implication than a cycleway. (btw: these are fine
details and probably not only regarding Germany, but other countries
as well, but it might not be general knowledge and is therefore
probably sometimes ignored by the mappers).

cheers,
Martin




More information about the talk mailing list