Proposal:Foot cycleway
| Shared foot- and cycleway | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Draft (under way) |
| Proposed by: | ulamm |
| Tagging: | highway=foot_cycleway
|
| Applies to: | linear |
| Definition: | Slim tagging of a path or track that is designated for shared use of pedestrians and cyclists on eqal rights. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | Shape and colours of the sigature shall be between those of footway and cycletrack |
| Draft started: | 2014-12-28 |
| RFC start: | 2014-12-28 |
Several coutries have sideways as well as indepdent tracks and paths for shared use of pedestrians and cyclists, marked by a special road sign. This shared use on equal rights has to be distinguished from the permission to cycle on footways in pedestrian speed.
Rationale
Nowadays, such ways are recorded by a combination of four tags: highway=path or highway=cycleway with bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no, this does not even include the necessary recording of the cycling direction or bidirectionality and (in a country that provides both possibilities) obligatory vs. optional, nor informations on surface (also inevitable) and widths.
Such a standard class of ways has to be defined by one tag instead of four ones: highway=foot_cycleway
International survey
| no image | Australia | sign R8-2 |
| Error creating thumbnail: and File:Hinweiszeichen 28a.svg | Austria | left: sign 17a-a, obligatory (for both) right: sign 28a, optional for cyclists) |
| File:Belgian road sign D10.svg | Belgium | sign D10 |
| none | Brasilia | |
| Error creating thumbnail: | Canada | |
| File:C09acr.jpg | Czech Republic | sign C 9a |
| none | Denmark | |
| Error creating thumbnail: | Finland | sign 423 |
| File:FR-B54+C113+M9z.png and File:C115 1.png | France | left: shared zone for pedestrians and cyclists right: sign C115 on greenways |
 |
Germany | sign 240 |
| File:Road-sign-p66.svg | Greece | sign P66 |
| File:Hungary road sign D-027.svg | Hungary | sign D-027 |
| File:Pedestrians and bicycles.png | Israel | |
| none | Italy | |
| File:Japan road sign 325-3.svg | Japan | sign 325-3 |
| File:Norwegian-road-sign-522.0.svg | Norway | sign 522.0 |
| Error creating thumbnail: or File:Znak C-13-16.png[1] | Poland | sign C-13-16 |
| File:Portugal D7e.png[2] | Portugal | sign D7e |
| ? | Romania | |
| File:RU road sign 4.5.2.svg | Russia | sign 4.5.2 |
| none [3] | South Africa | |
| none | Spain | |
| File:Sweden road sign D6.svg | Sweden | sign D6 |
 |
Switzerland | sign 2.63.1 |
| File:UK traffic sign 956.svg | United Kingdom | sign 956 |
| none | USA |
Name
- Why not simply
highway=foot_cycle?
- The term ought to be available also for roadline-tagged tracks, such as
highway=secundary+foot_cycleway:right=forward+cycleway:left=backward+sidewalk=left.
- Why not
highway=footcycleway?
- That won't be wrong. It's a matter of dicussion, if the name with or without underscore is preferred.
Tagging
Like highway=footway and highway=cycleway
Rendering
Signature in an intermediate colour between footway colour and cycleway colour.
Routing
Speed score below carriageways and pure cycletracks, but better than tracks and paths with "footway/cycling permitted"-signs.
