Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
As a general rule, bicycles are prohibited from freeways in the US east of the Mississippi and allowed on rural freeways in the west. Of course this is a very broad definition and only a starting point for understanding. The key point is that people in the east often assume that bicycles are never allowed on freeways because they have never seen it, while people in the west assume that bicycles are allowed unless specifically prohibited. This results in confusion, to say the least. To deal with this you need to have the understanding of the general principles and then you have to actually know the local conditions. Kerry Irons From: John F. Eldredge [mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:43 AM Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 11, 2015 8:10:04 PM stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: I do not agree: again, I find no evidence (from the Oregon DOT map) that bicycles are explicitly designated legal on I-5. It may be the case that explicit statute specifies bicycles are allowed on I-5 in Oregon, but this map does not explicitly do so. Again, please note that no specific bike routes are designated on that map, either. It simply displays some highways as Interstates and some highways as containing wide shoulders or narrow shoulders. While not complaining about Oregon's DOT helping bicyclists better understand where they might or might not ride a bicycle in that state, I characterize these map data as early or underdeveloped w.r.t. helpful bicycle routing by a DOT. Oregon and Washington allow all modes on all routes unless otherwise posted. They have to explicitly sign exclusions, and they do. Here's the list for Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/freeway_ban.pdf And Washington: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm My previous post was California centric, going too far assuming for other states. (And fifty-at-a-time only in certain circumstances). A starting place (properly placed in the locus of each state, with perspective as a router might parse logic and build a routing set...) is the following: For 100% of ways with tag highway, set bicycle legality_status = legal. (This keeps everything still in the running.) Now, apply a per-state rule (could be a table lookup, could be a smarter data record): With both Washington and Oregon: exclude from our data set ways where helpful OSMers have tagged bicycle=no With California: exclude from our data set ways tagged highway=motorway, add to the set cycleways and highways tagged bicycle=yes. We are right in the middle of fifty ways of calculating a set. Those target objects might be elements of a bicycle route. As we get the tags right (critical, on the data and at the bottom) we must also treat the rules of what we seek from those data as critical, too (from the top, down). It's reaching across and shaking hands with a protocol, or a stack of protocols. It's data, syntax and semantics. When the sentence is grammatical (tags are correct for a parser), it clicks into place with the correct answer (renders as we wish). For the most part, we get it right. But we do need to understand the whole stack of what we do every once in a while, and pointing out data in California, treat like this, data in Oregon, Washington..., treat like that... is helpful to remember. Can we get to a place where everybody can do things (tag) just right for them and have it always work (render), everywhere every time? M, not without documentation and perhaps conversations like this. This is why documenting what we do and how we do it (and referring to the documentation, and trying to apply it strictly, unless it breaks, then perhaps talk about it and even improve it...) is so important. Listen, build, improve, repeat. Thank you (Paul, for your specific answer, as well as others for participating). SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I think the original question is are there bicycle routes that include Interstate Highways. From what we've learned, Interstate Highways can be tagged to allow bicycles where permitted by law. But just because bicycles are permitted, does that mean they are also part of a bicycle route? I'm not a bicyclist, so I'll defer to those that are. Bicycle routes should be documented by appropriate groups. I'm not sure who they are. We could also entertain tagging with the name of the organization documents the routes. ODOT's kind of an oddball edge case, considering all highways a valid route for all modes, and posting bypasses for segments inaccessible by certain modes. So, my Oregon and southern Washington RCN relations tend to reflect this localized assumption for better or worse, mostly out of a lack of a way to properly model it in a way that would seem consistent otherwise. Routes like 5, 26, 30, and 84 (noninclusively) are radically different in certain segments for bicycles than they are for motorists. So, they're not *explicitly* bicycle routes for the entire length of those relations, however, where they overlap the corresponding route=road of the same ref, it is an *implicit* route by virtue of being a state highway open to the public, where the only designated modes are likely to be hazmat, oversize and possibly triple-trailer rigs (and suitability for any of the modes permitted, motorized or not, is in no means guaranteed for nondesignated modes, and dangerous if not impossible for banned modes). These relations could probably be truncated to just the diverging aspects and split by contiguous segment if route=road is considered implicitly a route for all modes allowed by the member ways. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
I think last time I doublechecked it, something like 30 or 35 states allow nonmotorized access to freeways, making those that don't somewhat of a minority. However, given that 97%(?) of the population of the US lives in the ~215 lower-48 metropolitan areas (that is, pretty much any city large enough to have a suburb of separate incorporation, of which the smallest and newest could very well be Eufaula, OK (with it's suburb of Carlton Landing, which someone recently shifted it's centroid node across the lane and dropped it to a hamlet even though it's an incorporated town as of last year), and 90% of that being in the top 100 largest of those metros, most people live nearest to a relative minority of freeway miles that don't allow all modes. That said, given that I've pretty much only ever lived in the emptiest states in the country plus California, unless you're on one of the urban freeways that does allow bicycles, and you plan on biking the freeway, you better be prepared to go 20-50+ miles without stopping. I remember seeing one cyclist back in 2011 on I 80 between exit 4 and 41, a 37, nearly 38 mile gap between exits (third longest stretch between exits in the US), and in the direction I was going, that next exit wasn't going to be someplace you wanted to stop anyway. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com wrote: This is an interesting conversation. Since I'm on the east coast, I've never seen a bicycle on a freeway. Since I'm a bit of a road geek, I ask this very question of my fellow road geeks on our discussion forum. It seems many states have explicit laws allowing bicycles on the highway. Follow it here: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14452.0 Elliott On Mon Jan 12 2015 at 1:51:25 PM Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:43 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds. All the more reason to explicitly tag it, since it's explicitly posted. Of course, the bigger trick is finding the endpoints of that, since even in states that do allow it (save for California), it's rare to get a bicycles on roadway sign regularly (Oregon, Washington and Oklahoma usually only post it once starting usually just before or at where bicycles first enter, the corresponding sign the opposite direction would be bikes must exit/turn right/whatever before and no bicycles after. And they tend to be hard to spot because for whatever reason, USDOT thinks bicyclists can read fonts as tall as my thumb is thick while moving (which means information dense signage such as found in Portland for it's LCNs is next to useless without stopping in traffic), so all bicycle signage tends to be in the finest print possible, even on the freeway... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
This is an interesting conversation. Since I'm on the east coast, I've never seen a bicycle on a freeway. Since I'm a bit of a road geek, I ask this very question of my fellow road geeks on our discussion forum. It seems many states have explicit laws allowing bicycles on the highway. Follow it here: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14452.0 Elliott On Mon Jan 12 2015 at 1:51:25 PM Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:43 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds. All the more reason to explicitly tag it, since it's explicitly posted. Of course, the bigger trick is finding the endpoints of that, since even in states that do allow it (save for California), it's rare to get a bicycles on roadway sign regularly (Oregon, Washington and Oklahoma usually only post it once starting usually just before or at where bicycles first enter, the corresponding sign the opposite direction would be bikes must exit/turn right/whatever before and no bicycles after. And they tend to be hard to spot because for whatever reason, USDOT thinks bicyclists can read fonts as tall as my thumb is thick while moving (which means information dense signage such as found in Portland for it's LCNs is next to useless without stopping in traffic), so all bicycle signage tends to be in the finest print possible, even on the freeway... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Place classifications
Great start on this Minh, I tried to tackle this in the Baltimore Washington region last year. After reading the wiki, I decided on the following classifications: * hamlet: census population was less than 200 * village: census pop. between 200 and 1 * town: census pop. between 10001 and 5 * city: major hub urban centers above 5 There are some CDPs though that would be a city by population alone, but really don't have a true city feel, and cartographically would look bad as being a city on a map. The tricky one is Glen Burnie, sprawl area south of Baltimore with no urban core, yet the pop is over 65k. It is marked as a city now, but really should be town I think. I like your one city per metropolis idea. Elliott On Mon Jan 12 2015 at 12:12:59 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-09 12:45 GMT+01:00 Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: but more importantly, it accurately reflects what going to town means in the surrounding area. That seems to be the idea behind the wiki's nebulous definitions. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
On 1/12/15 2:00 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: This is an interesting conversation. Since I'm on the east coast, I've never seen a bicycle on a freeway. Since I'm a bit of a road geek, I ask this very question of my fellow road geeks on our discussion forum. It seems many states have explicit laws allowing bicycles on the highway. Follow it here: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14452.0 in fact, here in NYS there is a class of trunk-ish roads called Urban Expressways where bikes and pedestrians are forbidden; sometimes it's posted but sometimes it's not. they're unpleasant roads to bike on or walk on anyway, but for bicycle commuters, sometimes they're the only route. Washington Avenue Extension in Albany is a good example. it's not explicitly posted so most don't know they shouldn't bike or walk on it, but it's the only access to a bunch of office buildings. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: in fact, here in NYS there is a class of trunk-ish roads called Urban Expressways where bikes and pedestrians are forbidden; sometimes it's posted but sometimes it's not. Having commuted by freeway by bicycle in a number of places where the practice is allowed, nobody's saying it's pleasant (heck, often the alternative route is worse, like the cycleway that hovers on the top of the sound wall of Interstate 84 near the Portland/Gresham line, mostly because the freeways get swept and animals must be in a vehicle there, and there's not only shoulders, but plenty of room to get around pedestrians, which just isn't the case on the I 84 Cycleway. You're often riding with a chain link fence keeping you from wiping out onto the freeway ~10 feet below on one side and a ~15 foot high concrete wall looking like something out of Half Life 2's Combine architecture on the other for miles at a stretch). they're unpleasant roads to bike on or walk on anyway, but for bicycle commuters, sometimes they're the only route. Washington Avenue Extension in Albany is a good example. it's not explicitly posted so most don't know they shouldn't bike or walk on it, but it's the only access to a bunch of office buildings. Oklahoma is notorious with this, and we're getting a lot more people over time that don't even know the rules about it here. Though, it's kind of a dirty trick: Bicycles are allowed on any highway anywhere in the state that does not have a minimum speed limit unless otherwise posted (ie, I don't know of any place this is the case, but the law explicitly codifies an exception for designated bicycle routes with a minimum speed limit; routes that don't have a minimum speed limit may ban bicycles for legitimate safety reasons (and not because it's inconvenient to pass, because then you'd have to ban equestrian and agricultural traffic as well for the same reason)). However, they also expect you to be psychic: Minimum speeds are typically not posted until after you're already on the road and committed, and entry ramps (save for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority operated highways (all ten, and soon to be eight, of them)) typically lack signage informing people of banned modes. So, the first sign that you aren't supposed to be there on a bicycle is probably passing Speed Limit 65 Minimum 40 signage...half a mile or more after you entered the road and committed to it, assuming you don't have map data aware of this restriction and/or you're navigating off personal knowledge. Sometimes this will happen on a rural surface expressway...a mile after you passed the last intersection, without so much as a minimum speed ahead warning. And that's only if you're enough of a road geek to actually know this in the first place. End result: You'll probably pass three or four cyclists a month on urban freeways in Oklahoma, even as a casual car commuter. TL;DR: I spent a paragraph going over an annoyingly inobvious modal ban that drives me batshit insane trying to find it here. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Abandoned Buildings in Baltimore
Greetings US OSM'ers, I'm working with some other locals on another import, this time for Baltimore City. In thinking of good attributes to add to buildings, I thought it might be pertinent to denote the city's 16K+ vacant buildings [1] on the OSM buildings. Have other people been doing this? According to the wiki [2], it seems like the best tagging would be either abandoned:building=yes or a combo of building=yes and abandoned:building=yes. The full import is still in development so I'll share more to the imports list when it is ready for primetime. Until them I'm just interested if people are mechanically describing vacant buildings. Best, Elliott [1] https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Housing-Development/Vacant-Buildings [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Mappy Hour
Tonight! Be there or be spherical Mercator. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c98gk0o8cjli2crjlcoa6f0vom8 Martijn ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned Buildings in Baltimore
On 1/12/15 4:27 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: I'm working with some other locals on another import, this time for Baltimore City. In thinking of good attributes to add to buildings, I thought it might be pertinent to denote the city's 16K+ vacant buildings [1] on the OSM buildings. Have other people been doing this? According to the wiki [2], it seems like the best tagging would be either abandoned:building=yes or a combo of building=yes and abandoned:building=yes. what is the definition you are using for abandoned? here in Albany there is a major problem with empty buildings with absentee landlords who are not maintaining the buildings. how would Baltimore classify these? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned Buildings in Baltimore
In the dataset, those ones are owned by the city. When the property becomes vacant and the landlord can't pay the taxes, the landlords default and the city scoops the property up for non-payment of taxes. The 16K in this dataset are just the ones the city owns. There are apparently many more that are held by banks or someone hoping to make a buck if gentrification expands there. Here is a typical street with vacants in Baltimore [1]. If I were to classify abandoned buildings myself, I'd go by the wiki definition which would include buildings that have fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort [2]. However, if we even include the data, it would only be for buildings the city has identified as vacant. You've raised a good point that it'd be hard to mechanically determine whether a building is abandoned or disused. I'll have to check if the dataset is only for truly abandoned buildings like the ones above. Kindly, Elliott [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandrabitar/3771516836/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned On Mon Jan 12 2015 at 4:39:52 PM Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/12/15 4:27 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: I'm working with some other locals on another import, this time for Baltimore City. In thinking of good attributes to add to buildings, I thought it might be pertinent to denote the city's 16K+ vacant buildings [1] on the OSM buildings. Have other people been doing this? According to the wiki [2], it seems like the best tagging would be either abandoned:building=yes or a combo of building=yes and abandoned:building=yes. what is the definition you are using for abandoned? here in Albany there is a major problem with empty buildings with absentee landlords who are not maintaining the buildings. how would Baltimore classify these? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned Buildings in Baltimore
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com wrote: If I were to classify abandoned buildings myself, I'd go by the wiki definition which would include buildings that have fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort [2]. However, if we even include the data, it would only be for buildings the city has identified as vacant. You've raised a good point that it'd be hard to mechanically determine whether a building is abandoned or disused. I'll have to check if the dataset is only for truly abandoned buildings like the ones above. Interesting thread. There are 960+ abandoned building tags according to taginfo. But only 60 with either vacant or empty. My little town has a number of vacant buildings. It might be interesting to see them on a map. There maybe a small handful of abandoned by the definition of serious disrepair. I suspect a search of tax records to show who owns the property might be a clue. I have be in contact with the city about importing their building data. I will remember to discuss their definition of vacant vs. abandoned. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abandoned Buildings in Baltimore
I discovered that shop=vacant has over 6,000 tags. That actually makes sense. The building is vacant with a for lease sign. Many are former shops for example Blockbuster. Clifford On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com wrote: If I were to classify abandoned buildings myself, I'd go by the wiki definition which would include buildings that have fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort [2]. However, if we even include the data, it would only be for buildings the city has identified as vacant. You've raised a good point that it'd be hard to mechanically determine whether a building is abandoned or disused. I'll have to check if the dataset is only for truly abandoned buildings like the ones above. Interesting thread. There are 960+ abandoned building tags according to taginfo. But only 60 with either vacant or empty. My little town has a number of vacant buildings. It might be interesting to see them on a map. There maybe a small handful of abandoned by the definition of serious disrepair. I suspect a search of tax records to show who owns the property might be a clue. I have be in contact with the city about importing their building data. I will remember to discuss their definition of vacant vs. abandoned. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour
That was a horrible but especially clever pun. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Tonight! Be there or be spherical Mercator. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c98gk0o8cjli2crjlcoa6f0vom8 Martijn ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Place classifications
2015-01-09 12:45 GMT+01:00 Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: but more importantly, it accurately reflects what going to town means in the surrounding area. That seems to be the idea behind the wiki's nebulous definitions. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:43 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds. All the more reason to explicitly tag it, since it's explicitly posted. Of course, the bigger trick is finding the endpoints of that, since even in states that do allow it (save for California), it's rare to get a bicycles on roadway sign regularly (Oregon, Washington and Oklahoma usually only post it once starting usually just before or at where bicycles first enter, the corresponding sign the opposite direction would be bikes must exit/turn right/whatever before and no bicycles after. And they tend to be hard to spot because for whatever reason, USDOT thinks bicyclists can read fonts as tall as my thumb is thick while moving (which means information dense signage such as found in Portland for it's LCNs is next to useless without stopping in traffic), so all bicycle signage tends to be in the finest print possible, even on the freeway... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
