On 19/03/2013 14:04, David Fisher wrote:
Hi Shaun, I take it you're referring to Ipswich? In which case, I can sort of see the logic. It's not "one-way", it's "no entry", so when the excepting conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way. In Croydon's case there's that "no motor vehicles" sign at one end, with a "no entry" sign at the other with no excepting conditions -- so presumably the intention is for the street to be one-way even for cyclists. (which is odd, given that there's nowhere else obvious to go coming southbound on a cycle.) I'm now in contact with the local cycling advocacy group, so will see if I can get a (more) official position on Croydon in the same way as you have for Ipswich.
No entry signs don't (necessarily) mean a street is one way: they mean you cannot drive/cycle between the pair of No Entry signs (unless you are one of the stated exceptions, in this case an "overnight" cyclist). A street is one-way if it has the white-on-blue One Way sign (including cyclists, unless there is an contraflow lane explicitly painted on the road).
The reason they use No Entry sings in this slightly ambiguous way is because motorists don't or won't respect No Motor Vehicles signs. The rules used to disallow "except cyclists" under No Entry signs, which meant they had to have a cycle bypass with an island to carry the left-hand No Entry sign, for which there often wasn't space, an endless source of frustration for cyclists. But the rules were relaxed a couple of years ago.
David _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
