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] 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
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
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] 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] 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] 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
[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
Hi all, I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them. One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159 The other is I-5 in Oregon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485 Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn. In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider. I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged elsewhere in the world), but the original editor has since changed it back with a plaintive changeset comment in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 . The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per se, it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm not too worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the constituent ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway. But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike routing (which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for all apart from MTB-ers. Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator seems hostile, perhaps for prominence on OpenCycleMap issues. (I've messaged him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be another commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of. What does the community think? cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer and tagging for the router ;). To play a little bit of devil's advocate, gravel roads are eminently bikeable to many non-mountain bikes. Bike manufacturers have come out with gravel grinder style bikes which are really just old style road bikes with wide tires. There is fast becoming a continuum from mountain bike to road racing bike in terms of their ability to handle different types of road conditions My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved (or tracks as many already are). 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. James On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 14:08 +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them. One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159 The other is I-5 in Oregon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485 Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn. In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider. I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged elsewhere in the world), but the original editor has since changed it back with a plaintive changeset comment in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 . The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per se, it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm not too worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the constituent ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway. But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike routing (which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for all apart from MTB-ers. Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator seems hostile, perhaps for prominence on OpenCycleMap issues. (I've messaged him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be another commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of. What does the community think? cheers Richard ___ 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
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. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association -Original Message- From: James Umbanhowar [mailto:jumba...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:28 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer and tagging for the router ;). To play a little bit of devil's advocate, gravel roads are eminently bikeable to many non-mountain bikes. Bike manufacturers have come out with gravel grinder style bikes which are really just old style road bikes with wide tires. There is fast becoming a continuum from mountain bike to road racing bike in terms of their ability to handle different types of road conditions My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved (or tracks as many already are). 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. James On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 14:08 +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them. One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159 The other is I-5 in Oregon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485 Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn. In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider. I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged elsewhere in the world), but the original editor has since changed it back with a plaintive changeset comment in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 . The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per se, it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm not too worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the constituent ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway. But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike routing (which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for all apart from MTB-ers. Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator seems hostile, perhaps for prominence on OpenCycleMap issues. (I've messaged him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be another commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of. What does the community think? cheers Richard ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
