<div dir="ltr">Steve and Friends,<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>I have mapped my observations with this changeset: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403">http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403</a></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Elliott</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:40 PM Kerry Irons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@gmail.com">irons54vortex@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Steve,<br>
<br>
When the locals have confirmed your work, let's provide a concise summary of<br>
the issues to MDOT. I have the contact information in the agency.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: stevea [mailto:<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com" target="_blank">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:32 PM<br>
To: FTA/Ethan; Elliott Plack; Wade; Phil! Gold; Kerry Irons<br>
Subject: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?<br>
<br>
Hello Ethan, Elliott, Wade, Phil and Kerry:<br>
<br>
Ethan made a great effort to get most of USBR 11 in Maryland entered into<br>
OpenStreetMap (OSM) a week ago. I understand his apparent trepidation at<br>
entering the remainder of the southerly portion of the route near Weverton<br>
and Keep Tryst Road: there is what appears as a dangerous-to-bicyclists<br>
routing that MDOT has documented in its application. The application notes<br>
that "Bicyclists Must Use Shoulder" on Maryland 67 and US 340, and the<br>
interchange between these and onward to Keep Tryst Road seems OK for USBR 11<br>
southbound cyclists. However, for USBR 11 northbound cyclists it involves<br>
some contraflow shoulder riding on US 340 against 55 MPH automobile traffic<br>
for about a kilometer (the last 500 m on the cloverleaf), and may involve a<br>
tricky crossing across the southern terminus of Maryland 67 just south of<br>
the bridge over US 340 so that subsequent riding is with the flow of traffic<br>
on the shoulder of Maryland 67.<br>
<br>
I documented these difficulties in "source ways and nodes" of OSM with note<br>
tags. However, these do not show up in rendered maps, they are there<br>
largely to guide OSM editors of how present intentions are tagged and<br>
intended to be tagged in the future as newer infrastructure is built:<br>
thankfully, Page 10 of MDOT's USBR 11 application notes that MDOT "will<br>
pursue grant funding for a new shared-use path to route bicyclists between<br>
Keep Tryst Road and MD 67 under US 340. This will eliminate the need for<br>
bicyclists to ride on US 340 in this location. Until such time as the<br>
shared-use path is constructed, bicyclists will use US 340." My note and<br>
note_2 tags are intended to convey these intentions. My bicycle=shoulder<br>
tag is something I have never used before, but it is intended to convey<br>
MDOT's intention that "bicyclists must use shoulder" on Maryland 67 and US<br>
340.<br>
<br>
Somewhat confusingly, I note that Page 9 of the application (PDF), or Page 3<br>
of the turn-by-turn directions, notes specific northbound routing for USBR<br>
11 cyclists. These actually "Begin" at Keep Tryst Road and US 340, "3.7<br>
miles from West Virginia State Line." As I understand the application, this<br>
implies that northbound USBR 11 cyclists have no routing from West Virginia<br>
for these 3.7 miles. I am further confused by what is an apparent error in<br>
the application here, instructions to turn RIGHT (eastbound) from the<br>
T-intersection of Keep Tryst Road onto US 340, while the intended direction<br>
is clearly westbound: indeed, the corresponding "General Direction of<br>
Travel" says "West." The most recent satellite imagery I see shows Keep<br>
Tryst Road does not allow a crossing of dual-carriageway US 340 here to<br>
travel westbound with the flow of automobile traffic.<br>
Finally, the next turn-by-turn instruction is to travel 0.4 miles from US<br>
340 and turn right onto Maryland 67 in an eastbound direction. First, there<br>
is no turn to be made here (that I can determine -- it seems it must be a<br>
contraflow shoulder ride through the cloverleaf, then that tricky crossing<br>
to ride with the flow of traffic south of the overcrossing) and Maryland 67<br>
is northerly here, not easterly.<br>
<br>
The relation in OSM is <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4095725" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4095725</a><br>
and the "tricky part for bicyclists" can be seen here:<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/39.33225/-77.68856&layers=C" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/39.33225/-77.68856&layers=C</a> .<br>
Also, I have updated the wiki entry<br>
(<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System</a>)<br>
for proposed USBR 11 in Maryland to reflect its completion in OSM (as I<br>
currently understand it).<br>
<br>
I ask OSM editors in Maryland, especially those familiar with this area, to<br>
please double check my work around the Maryland 67 and US<br>
340 interchange. Is the tagging adequate? Is the routing (both southbound<br>
and northbound) correct? Kerry, if you have an email contact for anybody in<br>
MDOT associated with this application, I encourage you to forward this onto<br>
them for a similar review of OSM's accurate documenting of this proposed<br>
USBR in Maryland. The most useful link to use is the relation link above,<br>
then zoom and pan.<br>
<br>
Thank you to everybody for a great team effort here!<br>
<br>
Steve All<br>
USBRS WikiProject coordinator<br>
California<br>
<br>
<br>
>Wonderful, thanks. I'm absolutely open to collaborators on any project :).<br>
><br>
>Ethan<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div>Elliott Plack<br><a href="http://elliottplack.me">http://elliottplack.me</a>