Thee one of those signs near to me -
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2201850653489697
accompanied by a No Pedestrians sign.
However the No Pedestrian sign cannot apply to the main carriageway - so
bicycles on the cycleway and pedestrians and other traffic on the
roadway of the dual carriageway.
I think that is not what the highway engineers wanted but is what is signed.
Regards
Tony
On 09/02/2026 13:23, Adam Snape wrote:
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
<http://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
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
