[Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Feb 9 13:55:55 UTC 2015


Wikipedia seems to be incomplete on this; I'm presently unaware of any
state that has a statewide prohibition.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:22 AM, John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com>
wrote:

> On February 9, 2015 4:32:36 AM CST, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to
>>> bicycles,
>>> where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as
>>> bike paths to avoid the tag soup of lanes,
>>> and ensure the (unusual) situation is perfectly clear.
>>>
>>
>> This is not a sensible assumption and I'm frankly getting a little sick
>> of having to mythbust this every few weeks just because 98% of America
>> happens to live next to the few, largely urban, exceptions to the norm.
>> It's not anywhere as rare as you make it out to be.  The Federal Highway
>> Administration indicates that the default for any way in the US unless
>> otherwise locally defined, even freeways, is bicycle=yes
>> <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/freeways.cfm>.
>> Bicycles even qualify for the HOV lane unless it presents a hazard.
>>
>> Even in car-centric regions like California, the number of freeway miles
>> that ban bikes is greatly overshadowed by the vast majority of miles that
>> go by the default of allowing bicycles.  In my experience, with a few
>> goofball exceptions largely in the midwest (such as, say, various sections
>> of US 75, US 412 and (to a far lesser extent) I 40 in Oklahoma that have a
>> minimum speed limit, yet is the only sensible route and in some cases the
>> only physically possible route, and thus the ban is both routinely ignored
>> and rarely enforced for the same reason it isn't enforced on farm equipment
>> (which poses a far greater hazard as this equipment often spans multiple
>> lanes) either; however I do try to tag anything that isn't a bike route and
>> has a minimum speed limit as bicycle=no per Oklahoma's legal idiosyncrasy),
>> there's very few segments except for the most urban settings where a ban is
>> even a sensible suggestion in the first place.  Wyoming could be retagged
>> right now if it isn't already:  There's not one spot in the freeway
>> system in that state that bans bicycles
>> <http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/state.cfm?ID=51#state>.
>>
>> Can we finally bury this myth that bicycle=no is somehow even remotely
>> the norm for American freeways?  That said, regardless of the restriction,
>> it's a good idea to tag bicycle=* and foot=* explicitly on trunk and
>> motorway routes as there still seems to be widespread misconception on this
>> and could interfere with ideal routing if excluded.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> According to <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorized_access_on_freeways>, 14 US
> states out of 50 allow bicycle use on Interstate highways. Wyoming is the
> only state that allows it state-wide. So, 72% of US states don't allow
> bicycles on Interstates. I don't have the percentages by highway mile
> available, but I would call a 72% majority the norm.
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john at 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150209/dbfb10db/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list