Can anybody work this stuff out?
Surely, this is a p1sstake. These airspaces cannot be route-planned, except by software or sometimes at a silly low level like GND-1000ft.
As you know, nobody has “the big picture” in mind. Everybody (military, civil, TMA, CTR, ATZ, natural parks, etc) designs his own and doesn’t worry how it comes together.
The chart is merely the sum of these.
If I look at my own flying, stuff like this is very often the reason I fly IFR. Not the weather, it’s airspace.
These airspaces cannot be route-planned, except by software
I think in 2015 we can just accept that route planning requires software.
I think the primary function of these is to scare pilots.
Having said that I crossed the first back and forth VFR when descending to Menorca without problems – and equally crossed the Cannes / Nice maze in a straight line VFR going down to Corsica.
With regards to the Swiss map, I’m a bit puzzled as it doesn’t look much like the one we use. But the restricted zones are mostly never active (and easy to get graphic depiction when they are) and with the exception of Zurich and Geneva the TMA’s aren’t a big deal to cross.
If I look at my own flying, stuff like this is very often the reason I fly IFR. Not the weather, it’s airspace.
Absolutely agree. Airspace and (military) restriction areas in France.
I used to love the planning process of a VFR flight. But I realise that was when I lived in Scandinavia and the US. Now I find it a PITA. I no longer enjoy spreading out all the charts on the living room floor, looking up all of the restriction areas that might possibly be active and planning my way around or through controlled airspace. Now it also makes my back and my knees hurt 
I think in 2015 we can just accept that route planning requires software.
For IFR, of course.
But for VFR? Drop this discussion into the context of present-day PPL training, and do you wonder why most people chuck it in almost right away?
Sure one can get a transit, most of the time, IF one is talking to a radar controller the whole time. But he has no obligation to give it to you. CAS is CAS – even in Belgium
With regards to the Swiss map, I’m a bit puzzled as it doesn’t look much like the one we use.
Indeed. It’s a singularly crappy depiction. Why does it even display High West, High Center, etc? It’s class C above F100/130/150 anyway.
I think in 2015 we can just accept that route planning requires software.
Is there any? I haven’t come across a VFR autorouter that could eg. do LSZK-LSZQ. Let alone reliably produced flyable routes with arbitrary aerodrome pairs
Believe it or not, Jepp Flitestar does that. You can specify “OCAS” (using various rules) and it goes away and does it.
For yours, this is what I got at 2500ft, having excluded Class A-D and CTRs and TMAs.
You don’t really need VFR autorouting but a dynamic and user friendly depiction, horizontal and vertical. This is what software gives you and then it becomes less of an issue.
With regards to the Swiss map, I’m a bit puzzled as it doesn’t look much like the one we use
I think there is some truth to that. ICAO maps and maps derived from them can often be useless for VFR navigation. We use maps made by the air force (paper only), but a VFR navigational app also works very well for sorting out air spaces. That said, there is nothing preventing anyone from flying VFR in C D E airspaces.
Anyway, they are smoking something in Norway too. They did a comparison of München airport and Oslo airport after the latest fattening. München has 60% more activity, yet Oslo TMA uses 3 times more space, apparently for no good reason whatsoever.
