Good catch on the MUTCD language. I'm not opposed to tagging with a bike lane and a parking lane, but then what should be used as the assumed width of the bike lane? This has direct relevance for my application, where I need to know how wide a bike lane is. Would you suggest an assumed width for parking and then subtract from the total to arrive at the operable space for people on bicycles?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Spencer Gardner <spencergard...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> The problem I see with that approach is that it doesn't distinguish >> between a road with a striped bike lane next to a parking lane and a road >> with the combined lane. >> > > I'm not sure that's a distinction that makes a difference. > > >> is considered a different facility from an engineering perspective. >> > > Is this something that's California specific? I know California does a > lot of things that noplace else in the US does because the benefit of > federal highway funds outweighs the costs of implementing them for > California, but this would be splitting hairs going a long way back. > Especially since California was one of the major relevant jurisdictions for > getting bicycle facilities in to the federal standards back in the '70s. > > USMUTCD 2009 rev 1 and 2 inclusive > <https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf> (the > current edition of the federal standards) seems to suggest it's not a > different kind of facility. Here's what appears to be the relevant parts: > > Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines, line 6: If a bicycle lane is > marked on the outside portion of the traveled way, the edge line that would > mark the outside edge of the bicycle lane may be omitted. > > I read that as "It should have an edge line, but it doesn't have to have > an edge line". > > The only other thing that I could see someone construing a situation like > this with no edge line as is a "shared lane", but Section 9C.07 Shared Lane > Marking line 3 specifically says "03 Shared Lane Markings shall not be used > on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes." So that's not the case, plus > it's lacking the "Corporal Bicycle" style shared lane marking in Figure > 9C-9, so it's not a shared lane. > > I'd say "Pretend there's an edge line between the shoulder and the bike > lane" since that's what it is in practice. This is up there with being > regionally idiomatic in leaving off markings that aren't strictly required, > like crosswalk lines and stop bars at signalized intersections with > signalized crosswalks in my neck of the woods. Are they marked on the > ground? No. Is it still highway=traffic_signals with > crossing=traffic_signals where the crosswalks functionally exist? Yes. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
