[Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

To be clear about USBR 11 in Maryland:  for source data, this OSM author looked 
at many things, including a combination of text-based instructions and the 
red-yellow-green lines published by Maryland DOT and OSM’s own data like 
Elliott’s tags to my FIXME tags.  This author also finds it prudent to mention 
now and again (including in this national forum, sorta like a PSA) that using 
Google data in OSM is not allowed.  As much as it might stink for a moment to 
say that, I’ll take the heat for having so many fingers point in my direction 
for saying it.  Again, please don’t copy from Google maps in OSM.  Peeyew, just 
saying it out loud feels kind of sour.  But that will linger just for a bit, 
it’ll blow away quickly.  Thanks, no offense, anyone.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Hi USBR (11, in this case) data folks:

Kerry, as a reminder, OSM is unable to use data derived from Google Maps, so I 
had to again follow text-based directions to complete the following.  By way of 
eliminating my earlier FIXME tags, Elliott’s newer tags of 
“cycleway:right=shoulder” are quite helpful and truly do disambiguate how one 
might ride through here (even as OCM does not explicitly render these, as OSM 
is primarily about correct tagging, not necessarily any particular rendering).

• I added some “forward” role tags to elements in the USBR 11 relation which 
clarify that the southbound-only portion of the route follow the cloverleaf 
(between SR 67 and US 340) and onto Keep Tryst Road.

• Kerry’s assertion that the southbound route takes the right hand ramp from 
the southern end of SR 67 onto US 340 for about 500 feet is a little short:  my 
JOSM session reports that segment (after the 270-degree “cloverleaf” and up to 
the right turn onto Keep Tryst Road) is about 1682 feet.

• I slightly modified the final approach on Keep Tryst Road so that instead of 
its final right turn “hook” instead it cuts through the parking lot, skirting 
parked cars on the service road (unsigned_ref=180A) to pick up the Appalachian 
Trail.  This is where the forward role tags end for the southbound-only 
segment, as N-only and S-only split/join here.

• The northbound-only segment now includes Keep Tryst Road west of the parking 
lot and about a half-mile (2533 feet) on US 340 back to the “trumpet curve” 
(exit from US 340) and onto MD 67 starting with the bridge over US 340, again 
with “forward” role tags as appropriate.

The relation as just entered can be viewed directly with:
http://www.osm.org/relation/4095725#map=16/39.3284/-77.6924=C
where the orange superimposed line shows the new edits/corrections.  However, 
the usual caveat that this will take a few days (weeks for low zooms) in 
OpenCycleMap do apply.  In the meantime, the orange line (newly corrected 
relation) can be compared to the older red USBR route line until the 
re-rendering is complete, when these will match each other.

If I/we STILL don’t have this right, I sure would like to hear about it!  
Thanks to everybody for the joint effort at getting this corrected.

SteveA
California


> On Jun 19, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Kerry Irons  wrote:
> 
> Not sure how this got missed but attached is the detail map from MDDOT.  It’s 
> a little hard to read on my monitor but the red line is the NB route.  Thanks 
> as always.
>  
>  
> Kerry
>  
> From: Brad Neuhauser [mailto:brad.neuhau...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:10 AM
> To: Kerry Irons 
> Cc: Elliott Plack ; OSM Volunteer stevea 
> ; Wade ; FTA/Ethan 
> ; Phil! Gold ; 
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?
>  
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kerry Irons  wrote:
>> The NB route uses Keep Tryst Rd. west from the path to connect with US 340 
>> for about 1,500 ft. headed east and then onto the ramp to SR 67.  The SB 
>> route takes the right hand ramp from the southern end of SR 67 onto US 340 
>> for about 500 ft. and then right onto Keep Tryst Rd. and then onto the path. 
>>  The route uses the towpath, not Sandy Hook Rd.
>>  
> So, where they split, it looks like the NB route isn't tagged at all, just 
> the SB route.
> 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Correct.  I’ll send the MDDOT map to Steve All.  Not sure what happened that 
the full route didn’t get there, but it’s a feature of OSM that people find 
these things and they get fixed!

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Brad Neuhauser [mailto:brad.neuhau...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:10 AM
To: Kerry Irons 
Cc: Elliott Plack ; OSM Volunteer stevea 
; Wade ; FTA/Ethan 
; Phil! Gold ; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kerry Irons  > wrote:

The NB route uses Keep Tryst Rd. west from the path to connect with US 340 for 
about 1,500 ft. headed east and then onto the ramp to SR 67.  The SB route 
takes the right hand ramp from the southern end of SR 67 onto US 340 for about 
500 ft. and then right onto Keep Tryst Rd. and then onto the path.  The route 
uses the towpath, not Sandy Hook Rd.

 

So, where they split, it looks like the NB route isn't tagged at all, just the 
SB route.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Brad Neuhauser]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kerry Irons 
wrote:

> The NB route uses Keep Tryst Rd. west from the path to connect with US 340
> for about 1,500 ft. headed east and then onto the ramp to SR 67.  The SB
> route takes the right hand ramp from the southern end of SR 67 onto US 340
> for about 500 ft. and then right onto Keep Tryst Rd. and then onto the
> path.  The route uses the towpath, not Sandy Hook Rd.
>
>
>
So, where they split, it looks like the NB route isn't tagged at all, just
the SB route.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Recognize that the small sign is not a USBR sign.  In your first link I could 
find no bike route sign unless it is that sign way off in the distance that I 
can’t make out.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Elliott Plack [mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Kerry Irons ; OSM Volunteer stevea 

Cc: FTA/Ethan ; Wade ; Phil! Gold 
; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so you 
can see some of the bike signage. 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo 

 

This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS: 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo

 

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM Kerry Irons  > wrote:

Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.  Currently 
just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both at the state 
and local (non state highway) level.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com 
 ] 
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Elliott Plack  >
Cc: Kerry Irons  >; 
FTA/Ethan  >; Wade 
 >; Phil! Gold 
 >; talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
 
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

Elliott Plack  > wrote:

 

Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance to 
observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is 
effectively a motorway for travel.

 

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added 
copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, 
Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!

 

There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that I 
observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had a 
green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst Rd / 
Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the bicycles 
must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference. There is a 
Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part that is USBR 11.

 

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” 
but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state 
DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) 
by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to 
do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more 
grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) 
sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to 
sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.

 

For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the 
cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this condition.

 

Thank you, thank you.

 

Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the westbound is 
tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection along the eastbound 
portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is probably not enough to call 
the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

 

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it 
interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better 
tagged.

 

Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the Potomac 
River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access the bridge 
that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling routers, like OSRM 
or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed there provided they 
dismount (per signage).

 

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it 
is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These 
things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of 
bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a 
router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a 
lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” 
semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).

 

I have mapped my observations with this changeset: 

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Elliott Plack  wrote:
> I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so 
> you can see some of the bike signage. 
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo 

Thanks for doing this!  (Ah, rural Maryland, so pretty).

> This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS: 
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo

Wow!  Where is my magnifying glass?!  Even being right ON TOP of this, I’ve 
never seen a “Bike Must Exit” sign this small!

SteveA
California
(who used to have an apartment in Baltimore at 31st & St. Paul back in the 
early 1990s)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Elliott Plack]

I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so
you can see some of the bike signage.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo

This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM Kerry Irons  wrote:

> Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.
> Currently just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both
> at the state and local (non state highway) level.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
> *To:* Elliott Plack 
> *Cc:* Kerry Irons ; FTA/Ethan <
> eman...@hotmail.com>; Wade ; Phil! Gold <
> phi...@pobox.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?
>
>
>
> Elliott Plack  wrote:
>
>
>
> Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a
> chance to observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to
> use what is effectively a motorway for travel.
>
>
>
> I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added
> copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later,
> Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!
>
>
>
> There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that
> I observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had
> a green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst
> Rd / Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the
> bicycles must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference.
> There is a Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part
> that is USBR 11.
>
>
>
> Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say
> “encouraged” but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route
> exists by state DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non)
> network (called USBRS) by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:
>  sometimes there is budget to do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect
> signs, sometimes signage is a more grass-roots effort (fundraising,
> sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route
> sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to sign here but I think we all agree
> the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.
>
>
>
> For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the
> cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this
> condition.
>
>
>
> Thank you, thank you.
>
>
>
> Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the
> westbound is tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection
> along the eastbound portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is
> probably not enough to call the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?
>
>
>
> You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it
> interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better
> tagged.
>
>
>
> Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the
> Potomac River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access
> the bridge that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling
> routers, like OSRM or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed
> there provided they dismount (per signage).
>
>
>
> There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase,
> it is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.
> These things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of
> bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a
> router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a
> lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special”
> semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).
>
>
>
> I have mapped my observations with this changeset:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403
>
>
>
> Deeply appreciated.  This tagging and routing were a little sticky here,
> and now are much better.
>
>
>
> SteveA
>
> California
>
> USBRS WikiProject coordinator
>
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.  Currently 
just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both at the state 
and local (non state highway) level.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Elliott Plack 
Cc: Kerry Irons ; FTA/Ethan ; 
Wade ; Phil! Gold ; 
talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

Elliott Plack  > wrote:





Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance to 
observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is 
effectively a motorway for travel.

 

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added 
copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, 
Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!





There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that I 
observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had a 
green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst Rd / 
Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the bicycles 
must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference. There is a 
Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part that is USBR 11.

 

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” 
but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state 
DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) 
by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to 
do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more 
grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) 
sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to 
sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.





For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the 
cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this condition.

 

Thank you, thank you.





Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the westbound is 
tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection along the eastbound 
portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is probably not enough to call 
the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

 

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it 
interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better 
tagged.





Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the Potomac 
River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access the bridge 
that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling routers, like OSRM 
or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed there provided they 
dismount (per signage).

 

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it 
is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These 
things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of 
bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a 
router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a 
lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” 
semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).





I have mapped my observations with this changeset: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403

 

Deeply appreciated.  This tagging and routing were a little sticky here, and 
now are much better.

 

SteveA

California

USBRS WikiProject coordinator

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Ah, my spell-check is to blame!

“non” should be ncn
“lcm” should be lcm
“a bicycle router showing” should be “a bicycle renderer showing”

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Whoops, a couple typos back there:

“non” should be non
“lcm” should be lcn

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Elliott Plack  wrote:

> Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance 
> to observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is 
> effectively a motorway for travel.

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added 
copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, 
Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!

> There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that I 
> observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had a 
> green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst Rd / 
> Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the bicycles 
> must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference. There is a 
> Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part that is USBR 
> 11.

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” 
but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state 
DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) 
by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to 
do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more 
grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) 
sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to 
sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.

> For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the 
> cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this 
> condition.

Thank you, thank you.

> Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the westbound 
> is tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection along the 
> eastbound portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is probably not 
> enough to call the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it 
interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better 
tagged.

> Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the Potomac 
> River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access the bridge 
> that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling routers, like 
> OSRM or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed there provided 
> they dismount (per signage).

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it 
is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These 
things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of 
bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a 
router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a 
lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” 
semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).

> I have mapped my observations with this changeset: 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403 
> 
Deeply appreciated.  This tagging and routing were a little sticky here, and 
now are much better.

SteveA
California
USBRS WikiProject coordinator___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Elliott Plack]

Steve and Friends,

Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a
chance to observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to
use what is effectively a motorway for travel.

There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that
I observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had
a green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst
Rd / Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the
bicycles must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference.
There is a Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part
that is USBR 11.

For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the
cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this
condition.

Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the
westbound is tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection
along the eastbound portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is
probably not enough to call the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the
Potomac River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access
the bridge that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling
routers, like OSRM or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed
there provided they dismount (per signage).

I have mapped my observations with this changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403

Best,

Elliott

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:40 PM Kerry Irons  wrote:

> Steve,
>
> When the locals have confirmed your work, let's provide a concise summary
> of
> the issues to MDOT.  I have the contact information in the agency.
>
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:32 PM
> To: FTA/Ethan; Elliott Plack; Wade; Phil! Gold; Kerry Irons
> Subject: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?
>
> Hello Ethan, Elliott, Wade, Phil and Kerry:
>
> Ethan made a great effort to get most of USBR 11 in Maryland entered into
> OpenStreetMap (OSM) a week ago.  I understand his apparent trepidation at
> entering the remainder of the southerly portion of the route near Weverton
> and Keep Tryst Road:  there is what appears as a dangerous-to-bicyclists
> routing that MDOT has documented in its application.  The application notes
> that "Bicyclists Must Use Shoulder" on Maryland 67 and US 340, and the
> interchange between these and onward to Keep Tryst Road seems OK for USBR
> 11
> southbound cyclists.  However, for USBR 11 northbound cyclists it involves
> some contraflow shoulder riding on US 340 against 55 MPH automobile traffic
> for about a kilometer (the last 500 m on the cloverleaf), and may involve a
> tricky crossing across the southern terminus of Maryland 67 just south of
> the bridge over US 340 so that subsequent riding is with the flow of
> traffic
> on the shoulder of Maryland 67.
>
> I documented these difficulties in "source ways and nodes" of OSM with note
> tags.  However, these do not show up in rendered maps, they are there
> largely to guide OSM editors of how present intentions are tagged and
> intended to be tagged in the future as newer infrastructure is built:
> thankfully, Page 10 of MDOT's USBR 11 application notes that MDOT "will
> pursue grant funding for a new shared-use path to route bicyclists between
> Keep Tryst Road and MD 67 under US 340.  This will eliminate the need for
> bicyclists to ride on US 340 in this location.  Until such time as the
> shared-use path is constructed, bicyclists will use US 340."  My note and
> note_2 tags are intended to convey these intentions.  My bicycle=shoulder
> tag is something I have never used before, but it is intended to convey
> MDOT's intention that "bicyclists must use shoulder" on Maryland 67 and US
> 340.
>
> Somewhat confusingly, I note that Page 9 of the application (PDF), or Page
> 3
> of the turn-by-turn directions, notes specific northbound routing for USBR
> 11 cyclists.  These actually "Begin" at Keep Tryst Road and US 340, "3.7
> miles from West Virginia State Line."  As I understand the application,
> this
> implies that northbound USBR 11 cyclists have no routing from West Virginia
> for these 3.7 miles.  I am further confused by what is an apparent error in
> the application here, instructions to turn RIGHT (eastbound) from the
> T-intersection of Keep Tryst Road onto US 340, while the intended direction
> is clearly westbound:  indeed, the corresponding "General Direction of
> Travel" says "West."  The most recent satellite imagery I see shows Keep
> Tryst Road does not allow a crossing of dual-carriageway US 340 here to
> travel westbound with the flow of automobile traffic.
> Finally, the next turn-by-turn instruction is to travel 0.4 miles from US
> 340 and turn right onto Maryland 67 in an eastbound