# Review on Soft Mobility Infrastructure Design Codes
## 2 Codes for Soft Mobility Infrastructure
### Road and Roadside Facilities  
#### 2.4.1 Guidance Facilities  
The surfacing and marking of SMI also play an integral role in the safety of facility users. The performance and smoothness of the road surface will directly affect whether users can use the facility safely. Markings separate different road users while alerting more dangerous road users (e.g., faster ones) to watch out for more vulnerable users (e.g., SMI users). Tables 10 and 11 are the summaries of the requirements of pavement surface and marking of pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the countries and regions analyzed. However, Tables 10 and 11 also show us a situation that needs to be solved urgently. Many countries and regions lack road surface and road marking specifications for SMI roads. SMI users may not be able to use SMI facilities safely due to the lack of road markings or may be affected by damage caused by poor road quality, which may lead to traffic accidents. Countries and regions that have made special regulations on bicycle lanes and sidewalks generally require bicycle lanes and sidewalks to use a different color than motor vehicle lanes. At the same time, white is the main color for markings. WA, GR, and NJ also have specific regulations on the width of markings. However, countries that have not made regulations on signs, markings, and road surfaces do not have regulations at all. Instead, they are uniformly regulated in the motor vehicle road design specifications and are not mentioned here separately. Separating different road traffic users increases safety and facilitates traffic flows. The main methods of separation are (i) soft separation (lines and markings) and (ii) hard separation, depending on road class and specific location (green belt or barriers). As the difference between the separated objects of road traffic users increases (e.g., speed difference), the separation method between each road traffic user also changes to \"harder\" ones (shown in Table 12). Figure 9: Stopping and decision sight distance in South Africa. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pavement Requirement**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Marking Requirement**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **Flatness** & **Skid** & **Wear** & **Permeable** & **Dirt** & **Color** & **Type** & **Continuous** & **Color** & **Width** & **Sign Height** & **Expansion** \\ \hline AD & Smooth & Resistant & - & - & - & - & - & Firm materials & - & - & - & - & Provide \\ \hline AT & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & \(\geq\)2.0 m & - \\ \hline BJ & Flat & Resistant & Resistant & \(\surd\) & Resistant & Mainly gray & Asphal & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline CN & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline DK & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline DL & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline CR & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline HK & - & - & - & - & - & Special patterns & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline JP & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline NJ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline NZ & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & asphal & - & - & - & - \\ \hline RU & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline SG & Good & - & - & - & - & - & - & Concrete & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline TW & Smooth & - & - & \(\surd\) & - & Different from driveway & - & \(\surd\) & - & - & - & - \\ \hline TZ & Smooth & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline WA & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & Concrete and bricks & - & White & 4 in. & - & - \\ \hline ZA & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & Concrete and asphalt & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Pavement and marking requirements of pedestrian facilities across the world.