[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
John F. Eldredge
john at jfeldredge.com
Mon Jan 12 05:43:05 UTC 2015
By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA
that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs
forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds.
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.
On January 11, 2015 8:10:04 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54 PM, stevea
> ><<mailto:steveaOSM at softworkers.com>steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> >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).
> 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
> 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.
> We are right in the middle of "fifty ways of calculating a set."
> Those target objects might be elements of a bicycle route. As we get
> the tags right (critical, on the data and "at the bottom") we must
> also treat the rules of what we seek from those data as critical, too
> (from the top, down). It's reaching across and shaking hands with a
> protocol, or a stack of protocols. It's data, syntax and semantics.
> When the sentence is grammatical (tags are correct for a parser), it
> clicks into place with the correct answer (renders as we wish).
> For the most part, we get it right. But we do need to understand the
> whole stack of what we do every once in a while, and pointing out
> "data in California, treat like this, data in Oregon, Washington...,
> treat like that..." is helpful to remember. Can we get to a place
> where everybody can do things (tag) "just right for them" and have it
> always work (render), everywhere every time? Mmmmm, not without
> documentation and perhaps conversations like this.
> This is why documenting what we do and how we do it (and referring to
> the documentation, and trying to apply it strictly, unless it breaks,
> then perhaps talk about it and even improve it...) is so important.
> Listen, build, improve, repeat. Thank you (Paul, for your specific
> answer, as well as others for participating).
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us