[Talk-us] RE; Bike route relation issues
Regarding the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159 I have three comments: 1) The first one is that as far as I know it is not signposted, so it should not be in OSM as a relation. Only if the ACA have plans to put signs up, it could became a proposed route (state=proposed). OSM is not the place to put unsigned routes, even if they are very important. Obviously this issue is for Kerry Irons to answer, as its one of their routes 2) if it is to be in OSM it is a national route (ncn) 3) if it is a Mountain bike Route by name, I suppose it is also in reality, so most likely it would be route=mtb (Kerry to decide) Obviously it would be a pity to lose all the work Jimmy FL has put in it, but OSM should not become the repository of private routes. Volker Padova/Italy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
Regarding the I-5 bicycle route, I looked a bit closer at this. In fact the route is most of the time on the I-5, but at the northern end in Portland it actually shows in detail the way cyclists need to take to avoid the no-cycles bit of the I-5 (see https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8msa=0z=10hl=enmid=zF9NcSQ7rxPw.kenRJL5pecto). In that sense the relation may make sense at its northern end, provided there is signposting on it. Otherwise no. Also there is no name in the relation and no reference to any web page or other information. Volker Padova, Italy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
Did you leave our the word “not” from the last sentence? Kerry Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map [1]. I5 is included in any of their approved routes. 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] RE; Bike route relation issues
Agree that the GD MTB route is a “private route” in that you need to obtain a map to figure out what the route is. Whether OSM wants to document private routes seems to be an open question. While Adventure Cycling is proud of the routes it has developed we do not claim them as “national routes” any more than a given year’s RAGBRAI cross-Iowa route deserves that recognition (RAGBRAI changes its route every year to include different parts of Iowa). This applies to dozens of other major routes and cross state rides in the US. None of them are signed and they often change from year to year. The Great Divide also spends a fair amount of its time on singletrack paths. Kerry From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:53 AM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-us] RE; Bike route relation issues Regarding the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159 I have three comments: 1) The first one is that as far as I know it is not signposted, so it should not be in OSM as a relation. Only if the ACA have plans to put signs up, it could became a proposed route (state=proposed). OSM is not the place to put unsigned routes, even if they are very important. Obviously this issue is for Kerry Irons to answer, as its one of their routes 2) if it is to be in OSM it is a national route (ncn) 3) if it is a Mountain bike Route by name, I suppose it is also in reality, so most likely it would be route=mtb (Kerry to decide) Obviously it would be a pity to lose all the work Jimmy FL has put in it, but OSM should not become the repository of private routes. Volker Padova/Italy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
The key question here, it seems to me, is whether there is any “official” body that claims these sections of I-5 to be a bicycle route. That might include bike clubs if indeed OSM decides to include “private routes” in the data base. I am not aware if any group that would suggest I-5 for a bike route in Oregon. If that is the case then it appears that this is simply someone claiming it to be a bike route by personal fiat. That opens the door to a discussion had last year about people putting personal opinion into OSM and designating it as a bicycle route. This seems to me to be a path to chaos but it is up to the OSM community to make that determination. Kerry Irons From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:35 AM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues Regarding the I-5 bicycle route, I looked a bit closer at this. In fact the route is most of the time on the I-5, but at the northern end in Portland it actually shows in detail the way cyclists need to take to avoid the no-cycles bit of the I-5 (see https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8msa=0z=10hl=enmid=zF9NcSQ7rxPw.kenRJL5pecto msa=0z=10hl=enmid=zF9NcSQ7rxPw.kenRJL5pecto). In that sense the relation may make sense at its northern end, provided there is signposting on it. Otherwise no. Also there is no name in the relation and no reference to any web page or other information. Volker Padova, Italy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
I did! I need more coffee.. It should read: Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map. I5 is not included in any of their approved routes. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Kerry Irons irons54vor...@gmail.com wrote: Did you leave our the word “not” from the last sentence? Kerry Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map [1]. I5 is included in any of their approved routes. 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] Bike route relation issues
Kerry Irons writes: By the logic that I-5 in Oregon is tagged as a bike route, then all roads in the US that don't prohibit bicycles should be tagged likewise. Obviously that logic is incorrect. There is no body, official or otherwise, that calls I-5 in Oregon a bike route. Agreed: see below about the map referenced by Clifford Snow which only notes that I-5 is an Interstate highway. No suitability or legality for bicycles is expressed (though it may be implied) by Oregon's DOT map. The legend on Oregon's State Bicycle Map, shows Interstate Freeways simply designated as such (and diminished by map color semiotics -- making them gray), no suitability or legality of Interstates for bicycles is expressed, though it may be implied by being a lesser semiotic. (As in, poor choice upon which to bicycle.) The map legend also denotes Highway Shoulder Width 4' or More (prominent: thick with red casing), Highway Shoulder Width Less then 4' (yellow and thinner) and Paved/Gravel Road Without Shoulder Data (thinner, less prominent lines yellow with gray casing or gray and very thin). Importantly, no specific mention is made about the legality of bicyclists on any particular road. So I come to a conclusion that Oregon's DOT makes no assertion of bicycle legality on any road, AND does not express any particular bicycle routes, at least with this particular map. Let us recall that it is longstanding correct data entry in OSM to enter physical infrastructure tags for bicycles (such as cycleway=lane) as well as logical infrastructure tags for bicycles (route relation data such as network=rcn). Both might be determined from either on the ground real world data such as paint on the asphalt (physical) / a Local Bike Route Number 44 sign (logical) OR from published/printed (by a government official body) data such as a map of a local or state bicycle route network. However, in the latter case of describing logical infrastructure, actual signs make route data unambiguous to put into OSM, whereas a published map without signs is a bit more controversial. I argue that a government body which says a logical bike route exists on these segments of physical infrastructure (but without signs) means that OSM can correctly contain a bicycle route relation reflecting this. This is the on the ground verifiability issue regarding signed vs. unsigned (logical) bicycle routes. We should not confuse this with using proper tags (cycleway=lane...) to describe physical bicycle infrastructure, or whether bicycling is legal on a particular segment of physical infrastructure: these are different but related issues. James Umbanhowar writes: The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer and tagging for the router...My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved (or tracks as many already are). Agreed, though this does not seem a conflict between tagging for the renderer and tagging for the router: tags highway=track and surface=gravel suffice to describe physical infrastructure, route=mtb and ref=GDB suffice to describe logical infrastructure. These accurately and sufficiently tag, and renderers get them right (well, they do or should). Additional tags (width=...) might not render, but if accurate, can be helpful. The I-5 thing seems strange. That is not a separate bike route but rather an interstate highway that allows bicycles. bicycle=yes on all the component ways should be sufficient. 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. And Richard Fairhurst asks: What does the community think? There are many issues here. One (e.g. in Oregon re: I-5) is whether any road which is legal for bicyclists should be 1) tagged with bicycle=yes and 2) be part of a bicycle route relation. From our United_States/Bicycle_Networks wiki, if a road or cycleway is tagged with a (local) Bike Route sign, without labeling or numbering of routes, ways marked as bike routes should be tagged lcn=yes, either directly or as members of a route relation. This makes sense, but it is not 1) above, it is more like 2). If a government body has posted Bike Route signs, it is clear we want lcn=yes. If a government body has published a map explicitly denoting a bicycle route (whether
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
Okay, why don't we just ask the creator of the relation? I have added Paul Johnson to the conversation -- he created the first version of the relation and is usually quite active on this list anyway. Paul, what was your intention with adding I5 as a bike route? Harald. On Sun Jan 11 2015 at 11:56:23 AM Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I did! I need more coffee.. It should read: Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map. I5 is not included in any of their approved routes. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Kerry Irons irons54vor...@gmail.com wrote: Did you leave our the word “not” from the last sentence? Kerry Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map [1]. I5 is included in any of their approved routes. 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Should this be a dual carriageway?
On 01/11/2015 07:32 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: However, north of the rotary for quite a while, it should just be primary. There are intersections and lights all over the place, nothing better than an ordinary US highwway that happens to have two lanes each way. It's posted 40 and we really mean it, for what that's worth, which is kind of like being posted 30 :-) I agree. - Lars ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Should this be a dual carriageway?
(I'm writing from the perspective of having driven Route 6 from the sagamore bridge to north eastham every summer for many years, and to Provincetown a few years ago.) If we're talking about where Route 6 goes from 2 lanes each direction with a real median down to one lane in each direction with a yellow line with plastic thingies stuck up, ending at the orleans rotary, it was still like that in late August of 2014, unchanged for many years. Construction of that would be such big news that Lars and I would have heard about it. I don't know when this picture was taken: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mid-cape/img10.gif but it looked like that last summer. In particular, that's a bridge for the cape code rail trail, and is probably http://osm.org/go/Ze0Y15wyd-- It definitely should be trunk. It's nowhere near motorway (no real median, 1 lane each way). It's way better than a regular US highway, in that it is limited access, with higher speeds. I see it's been retagged recently, and I concur. However, north of the rotary for quite a while, it should just be primary. There are intersections and lights all over the place, nothing better than an ordinary US highwway that happens to have two lanes each way. It's posted 40 and we really mean it, for what that's worth, which is kind of like being posted 30 :-) I can see calling it trunk north of Wellfleet until Ptown starts, but it's iffy. pgpqjjvlbPGFd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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 10:02 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Kerry Irons irons54vor...@gmail.com wrote: The key question here, it seems to me, is whether there is any “official” body that claims these sections of I-5 to be a bicycle route. That might include bike clubs if indeed OSM decides to include “private routes” in the data base. I am not aware if any group that would suggest I-5 for a bike route in Oregon. If that is the case then it appears that this is simply someone claiming it to be a bike route by personal fiat. That opens the door to a discussion had last year about people putting personal opinion into OSM and designating it as a bicycle route. This seems to me to be a path to chaos but it is up to the OSM community to make that determination. +1 I live in Washington State and have driven I5 a number of times. Just this week I saw a bike on I5 for the first time I can remember. That's rather scary, Cliff, and you *might* want to work on your situational awareness...unless the weather is truly awful, you're bound to pass at least 2 and up to a few dozen bicycles on I 5 between where they come in from I 205 north of Vancouver to Exit 100 just shy of Olympia where they have to get off and take alternate routes until Everett. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Should this be a dual carriageway?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Zontine, Chris -(p) chr...@telenav.com wrote: While mapping a FIXME in the US this situation came up: WAY ID 8822153. The FIXME implies this WAY (and others) should have a dual carriageway. As you can see this is one long stretch of highway=motorway. What is the thought on this? Not clear from a casual glance if there's a median in the middle of the quadruple lines, but it does look like a super-two. I'd call it a motorway and two ways if there's no at-grade intersections except for links plus a barrier down the center, trunk and two ways if there's at grade intersections or a single way if it's undivided with limited access (apply turn restrictions liberally as routing engines will try to make you U-turn to take the oncoming exit ramp if you miss your exit otherwise, or make an illegal U-turn if you accidentally turn the wrong direction in this situation without them). ___ 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 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 ___ 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 1:54 PM, stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.comstevea...@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.pdfhttp://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/freeway_ban.pdf And Washington: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htmhttp://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
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:09 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). Well, California's the same way. More miles of California's freeway are open to bicycles. That said, most of California's freeways are pretty much empty. 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 How about we not complicate this and just go with what we've always gone with, which is what you're providing as the washington and oregon example? Overly complicated defaults, like what you're suggesting, are *extremely* unlikely to be implemented by data consumers that would ideally have the same defaults worldwide. It's a *lot* easier to explicitly tag for this than it is to decide on an obscure forum for data consumers how they should be consuming our data. Lowest common denominator. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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 mailto:stevea...@softworkers.comstevea...@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.pdfhttp://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/freeway_ban.pdf And Washington: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htmhttp://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 Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:43 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. John, I think highway departments out west realize that Interstate Highways are necessary for all types of vehicles. I suspect mainly because of lack of alternatives. 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. A close analogy are hiking trails. For example the Pacific Crest is documented by the USDA Forest Service. Local trails are documented by local hiking organizations. Certainly both are welcome in OSM. Why not for bicycle routes? BTW - Wild is a great movie. 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
