I am not saying it's functional, but it is legally consequent. When this
stretch of foot-cycleway is busy, what happens is indeed that cyclists get
stuck behind pedestrians. It using line with the definition of shared
foot-cycle-ways: these are, legally, sidewalks on which bicycles are
tolerated,
For the record, I think a transfer role is a generic solution for the
issue raised here, applicable to the cable car transfer and other types of
transfer in routes, but I will not propose a new role value any time soon.
Anyone who wants to do it has my support, though.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op
Jun 24, 2020, 18:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and
>> cyclists).
>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg
>>
>
>
> what makes you believe this is
Hi,
Am 24.06.20 um 00:31 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> in Italy or Germany, the boundaries of protected areas typically either
> exclude builtup areas or if they are included, there are typically explicit
> special explanations/provisions for these areas. (there might be exceptions
> to this,
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and
> cyclists).
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg
what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks
I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and
cyclists).
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15. Jan 2020, at 12:05, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
> >
> >
