I feel the sign ought to be enough to signal the intent and the instruction. I also don't think we should be blind to how routers are going to take uk cycle paths to be shared, even designated, walking routes by default. It doesn't in any way help the usability of the map if pedestrian routers see these cycle lanes as routable paths and the access=discouraged tag is not as universally implemented as perhaps it ought to be.
I guess the sole exception would be the example in the wiki where there is no feasible alternative for pedestrians route than to walk in the cycle lane, though I'd imagine this is a rare error of design. I personally cannot recall encountering one without a nearby pedestrian alternative. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 9 Feb 2026, 00:58 Robert Skedgell, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/02/2026 16:53, Adam Snape wrote: > > 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. > > I've seen examples of Meta's editors removing foot=no on some of the TfL > Cycleways tracks where diagram 955 signs are present. I haven't objected > because it's hard to argue that any meaningful legal prohibition exists. > > Despite 955 being a circular blue sign (giving an instruction), I feel > that they're used and interpreted in way closer to the blue rectangular > "Unsuitable for HGVs" signs which are tagged as hgv=discouraged > > In the Highway Code, the diagram 955 sign is in the section on road > signs. However, in the part covering rules for pedestrians, Rule 13 > "Routes shared with cyclists" doesn't mention it all, even as > should/should not guidance. > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Adam > > > > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026, 14:55 Daniel Hatton via Talk-GB, <talk- > > [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb <https:// > > lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > -- > Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
