On 16 May 2012 01:05, Jason Cunningham <jamicu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Unless it's been recently changed..... the Cycle Only sign could never > prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the > Department for Transports "Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1]. > > The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles can > travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this sign > must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points out > usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away from > this intended 'cycle only' way. Interesting stuff. So from my research this morning, sign 955 (cycle only) is used in two scenarios - on-carriageway, for things like false one-way streets, and on off-carriageway routes. The text of the guidance is: -------- CYCLE TRACKS AND ROUTES SHARED WITH PEDESTRIANS 17.32 An off-road cycle track is indicated by the sign to diagram 955, which means that the route is for cycles only and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. As the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. The sign should be provided at the start of the cycle track and where the track crosses roads used by other traffic. The signs may also be used as repeaters along the route. [...] 17.33 Where a footway (forming part of a road) or footpath (e.g. through a park) has been converted to a route shared by pedestrians and cyclists, signs to either diagram 956 or 957 are used. These prohibit the use of the route by any other vehicles. The sign to diagram 956 indicates an unsegregated route. It should be located where the shared route begins and must be used as a repeater, at regular intervals (direction 11), to remind both pedestrians and cyclists that pedal cycles can be legally ridden on the footway or footpath. [...] -------- So while it's correct that 955 doesn't prohibit pedestrians, there's still a clear difference in intent between 955 and 956 (unsegregated shared ped/cycle). How do we capture the difference? After all, from a pedestrian's point of view, you'll be a bit miffed if OpenStreetMap treats 955 and 956 as identical and you keep getting routed down paths "not intended for pedestrians." Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
