Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com> 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 
> <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

Reply via email to