[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 12 02:38:45 UTC 2015
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:09 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
> 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.
> Oregon and Washington allow all modes on all routes unless otherwise
> posted. They have to explicitly sign exclusions, and they do. Here's the
> list for Oregon
> And Washington:
> My previous post was California centric, going too far assuming for other
> states. (And fifty-at-a-time only in certain circumstances).
Well, California's the same way. More miles of California's freeway are
open to bicycles. That said, most of California's freeways are pretty much
> A starting place (properly placed in the locus of each state, with
> perspective as a router might parse logic and build a routing set...) is
> the following:
> For 100% of ways with tag highway, set bicycle legality_status = "legal."
> (This keeps "everything still in the running.") Now, apply a per-state
> rule (could be a table lookup, could be a smarter data record):
> With both Washington and Oregon:
> exclude from our data set ways where helpful OSMers have tagged
> With California:
> exclude from our data set ways tagged highway=motorway,
> add to the set cycleways and highways tagged bicycle=yes
How about we not complicate this and just go with what we've always gone
with, which is what you're providing as the "washington and oregon"
example? Overly complicated defaults, like what you're suggesting, are
*extremely* unlikely to be implemented by data consumers that would ideally
have the same defaults worldwide. It's a *lot* easier to explicitly tag
for this than it is to decide on an obscure forum for data consumers how
they should be consuming our data. Lowest common denominator.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us