Hi, It's usually used where there's a separate footway pretty much adjacent, so there's no need for pedestrians to use the bit specifically for bikes.
Presumably the objection to using "foot=no" is that it's not actually an offence to walk in the cycle path. I think it's a bit moot because in the relatively few cases where the relevant Highway Authority has actually chosen to use the "Cycles Only" sign, they're fairly clearly giving an instruction whether or not that's backed up by legal penalties for transgression. Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 8 Feb 2026, 14:55 Daniel Hatton via Talk-GB, < [email protected]> wrote: > On 08/02/2026 05:54, Robert Skedgell (OSM) wrote: > > > Where we have highway=cycleway ways explicitly signed as being for > > cycles only, tagging of foot access in practice and the wiki are a > > little inconsistent. > In your forum post on this, you linked to the relevant OSM Wiki page. > Did you spot the footnote on that page that says "Before tagging as > foot=no please check that there is a convenient alternative route for > pedestrians nearby (e.g. a footway or road)"? People following that > principle could explain a lot of apparent inconsistency. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
