Proposed features/foot cycleway
|Shared foot- and cycleway|
|Status:||Draft (under way)|
|Definition:||Slim tagging of a path or track that is designated for shared use of pedestrians and cyclists on eqal rights.|
|Rendered as:||Shape and colours of the sigature shall be between those of footway and cycletrack|
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.
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.
|and||Austria||left: sign 17a-a, obligatory (for both)|
right: sign 28a, optional for cyclists)
|Czech Republic||sign C 9a|
|and||France||left: shared zone for pedestrians and cyclists|
right: sign C115 on greenways
|or ||Poland||sign C-13-16|
|none ||South Africa|
|United Kingdom||sign 956|
- The term ought to be available also for roadline-tagged tracks, such as
- highway=secundary + foot_cycleway:right=forward + cycleway:left=backward + sidewalk=left.
- That won't be wrong. It's a matter of dicussion, if the name with or without underscore is preferred.
Signature in an intermediate colour between footway colour and cycleway colour.
Speed score below carriageways and pure cycletracks, but better than tracks and paths with "footway/cycling permitted"-signs.