[Talk-us] Bike route relation issues
baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 12 18:59:14 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> I think the original question is are there bicycle routes that include
> Interstate Highways. From what we've learned, Interstate Highways can be
> tagged to allow bicycles where permitted by law. But just because bicycles
> are permitted, does that mean they are also part of a bicycle route? I'm
> not a bicyclist, so I'll defer to those that are. Bicycle routes should be
> documented by appropriate groups. I'm not sure who they are. We could also
> entertain tagging with the name of the organization documents the routes.
ODOT's kind of an oddball edge case, considering all highways a valid route
for all modes, and posting bypasses for segments inaccessible by certain
modes. So, my Oregon and southern Washington RCN relations tend to reflect
this localized assumption for better or worse, mostly out of a lack of a
way to properly model it in a way that would seem consistent otherwise.
Routes like 5, 26, 30, and 84 (noninclusively) are radically different in
certain segments for bicycles than they are for motorists.
So, they're not *explicitly* bicycle routes for the entire length of those
relations, however, where they overlap the corresponding "route=road" of
the same ref, it is an *implicit* route by virtue of being a state highway
open to the public, where the only "designated" modes are likely to be
hazmat, oversize and possibly triple-trailer rigs (and suitability for any
of the modes permitted, motorized or not, is in no means guaranteed for
nondesignated modes, and dangerous if not impossible for banned modes).
These relations could probably be truncated to just the diverging aspects
and split by contiguous segment if "route=road" is considered implicitly a
route for all modes allowed by the member ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us