The official terminology can vary by country. We should choose some term which is most universal, apposite and unambigous.
The current system of categorization mostly uses the word "bikeway" in the broader sense as a generall term for all forms of ways reserved or recommended for cyclists (cycle paths, cycle roads, cycle lanes, cycle routes (also on non-exclusive roads and ways) and other ways with prohibited motor-powered traffic and enabled cycling) but not all cycling infrastructure. Should we seek some better term for this umbrella meaning?
Signs contained in above-mentioned categories (bicycle road) pertain only to one specific form of them (one specific way of marking, different for example from cycle lanes or from ways reserved just by automobile-prohibition signs). "Cycle path" is most unambiguous term, which is in some coutries even an official term. "Bicycle road" is apposite only for some of cycle paths – some cycle paths are rather trails, side-paths etc. --ŠJů (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A categorization of cycle paths itself and their horizontal road marking should be also discussed (there exist several types of cycle paths and several types of markings: painted lanes and pictograms, colour paving, or only the metal sign without a horizontal marking, and either as side-path or as an independent way or road. We have no special categories of cycle paths by type. --ŠJů (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the variant 1 (Category:Cyclist path signs) which is most compatible with related categories (and besides, exactly consonant with the Czech official term). Also variants 2 (cycle path signs) and 3 (bicycle path signs) are fully acceptable (and conformable with English terminology used in en:Segregated cycle facilities). I don't support to use "bicycle road sign" or "bikeway sign" in the category name (var. 5 and 6) (for reasons explained above - ambiguity and indefinitude). --ŠJů (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D4: "Compulsory cycle track" ?
Comment[1] names File:Sweden road sign D4.svg "Compulsory cycle track". If the category would include just that, it could be argued that we might want to follow that terminology. The problem with some of the signs defined there is that a slight difference in the drawing can determine if it's the sign in the standard or not. As the scope of the category is larger, a different name is preferable. IMPROVER 4 has comparisons (with graphics) of different EU countries implementing the same signs. Apparently the added fun for the sign mentioned above is that "[..] in some countries the use of special lanes indicated by mandatory signs (e.g. D4 compulsory cycle track) is not compulsory as it is in most of the other countries." (appendix A page 31). BTW in other fields, I added the "end of .." signs to the main category. -- User:Docu at 01:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both cycle paths and cycle lanes are compulsory to use for cyclists if they are parallel with the motorway (carriageway) (and on the separate path can be hardly talked about any "compulsion"). The term "(compulsory) cycle track" (or only "cycle track" [2]) distinguishes insufficiently between cycle paths and cycle lanes. A terminology of the conventions can be a little outmoded, comes from times when compulsory cycle lanes didn't exist as well as combined cycle+pedestrian paths weren't reflected. Also the term en:track bicycle maybe didn't exist in 1960s. If we can prove that the term "cycle track" is really established and known (not only in the conventions but also abroad) in the special meaning of "cycle path" we can it consider but I have strong doubts. But how we should name a shared pedestrian+cycle path when the conventions don't mention it? The article en:Segregated cycle facilities says: „Segregated cycle facilities are roads, tracks, paths or marked lanes...“ We need some unified term including cycle roads, tracks and paths and excluding cycle lanes; the article names them as three different types and knows no conjunctive term for all three types signed by identical sign. (In the Czech terminology, the word "pás" or "jízdní pás" is adequate to "track" but "pás" is a general term – also carriageway is one of tracks, also sidewalk, also cycle path, also tram track, also a frontage road, also the green dividing strip is a "pás". For cycle, pedestrian and riding paths an tracks and sidepaths is used an identical term "stezka" (= path, trail) and the term "stezka" is used also in the official translation of Vienna Conventions. But we should take into consideration the worldwide prevailing usage and worldwide understandable term.
Diminutive diversity of national versions isn't relevant if those modifications "not alter their essential characteristics" (article 8 of the Signalling Convention).--ŠJů (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I don't really care how this falls out, but it seems to me that there are enough "end of..." signs that separating them out is not unreasonable. -- Jmabel ! talk03:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SJu: as there don't seem to be any additional comments, you might want to place your requests for SieBot. -- User:Docu at 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] names File:Sweden road sign D4.svg "Compulsory cycle track". If the category would include just that, it could be argued that we might want to follow that terminology. The problem with some of the signs defined there is that a slight difference in the drawing can determine if it's the sign in the standard or not. As the scope of the category is larger, a different name is preferable.