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 numbered, named or simply identified), I believe we can reasonably enter that into OSM, even without signs. (I realize this is controversial w.r.t. OSM's "on the ground verifiability" maxim). But if a government body has simply made bicycling legal on a particular CLASS of roadways, I don't believe we need explicitly tag it that way, lest we clutter the map, as bicycling is specifically allowed on many (perhaps even most) roads in the USA. Exceptions reasonably arise, for example, on sections of freeway (motorway) where bicycles ARE allowed, where it seems to make sense to tag bicycle=yes as it may otherwise be reasonably implied that freeway (motorway) is bicycle=no by default.
James Umbanhower's point about bicycle=yes on I-5 in Oregon (if indeed they are actually allowed/legal) seems correct to me as well. At least in the 50 states in the USA, it makes sense for OSM to start with the assumptions that bicycles are legal on all roads and that bicycles are not legal on freeways (motorways). We should then tag exceptions where there are exceptions. If this is I-5 in Oregon, then let us tag bicycle=yes on those segments. AND (also), if there is an explicit (non-private/public) ROUTE, then put those segments into a route relation. But I see no evidence to do this in the instant case. (We can certainly be persuaded otherwise with convincing data).
In short: bicycle tagging is reasonably separated into physical tagging and logical tagging. The former denotes physical infrastructure and/or (sometimes) whether bicycling is allowed/legal on a particular physical facility. The latter denotes whether a bicycle route logically exists on a set of physical facilities. Sometimes signs exist to denote a logical route (in which case it is unambiguously a bicycle route), sometimes no signs exist, but a government body publishes a map or description of the route, in which case it really does "exist" in real world, but may be difficult or impossible to determine by "on the ground" verifiability. This latter case still does stir controversy in OSM, but we do continue to discuss this in ways which are productive and helpful for OSM's longer term future.
SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
