[Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Sat Jun 18 20:55:59 UTC 2016

Recognize that the small sign is not a USBR sign.  In your first link I could find no bike route sign unless it is that sign way off in the distance that I can’t make out.

Kerry Irons

From: Elliott Plack [mailto:elliott.plack at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com>; OSM Volunteer stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
Cc: FTA/Ethan <emann15 at hotmail.com>; Wade <wade.crump at comcast.net>; Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com>; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so you can see some of the bike signage. http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo 

This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com <mailto:irons54vortex at gmail.com> > wrote:

Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.  Currently just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both at the state and local (non state highway) level.

Kerry

From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:steveaOSM at softworkers.com <mailto:steveaOSM at softworkers.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com <mailto:elliott.plack at gmail.com> >
Cc: Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com <mailto:irons54vortex at gmail.com> >; FTA/Ethan <emann15 at hotmail.com <mailto:emann15 at hotmail.com> >; Wade <wade.crump at comcast.net <mailto:wade.crump at comcast.net> >; Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com <mailto:phil_g at pobox.com> >; talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-us at openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com <mailto:elliott.plack at gmail.com> > wrote:

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.

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!

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.

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.

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.

Thank you, thank you.

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?

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better tagged.

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).

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).

I have mapped my observations with this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403

Deeply appreciated.  This tagging and routing were a little sticky here, and now are much better.

SteveA

California

USBRS WikiProject coordinator

-- 

Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160618/42cf8e3b/attachment.html>