Talk:United States/Bicycle Networks
USBR 25 in Ohio
As far as I can tell, USBR 25 in Ohio hasn't been given any attention by ODOT. However, the regional planning commissions and local governments in southwest Ohio have assumed for years that it'll use the Little Miami Scenic Trail and/or Great Miami River Recreation Trail, both of which conveniently fall within ACA's route 25 corridor in that part of the state. [1] – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
UGRR and UGR
Minh, my intent here was to express UGRR primarily and UGR in the specific expected, intended badge rendering sense of how OpenCycleMap renders. Call it "tagging for the wiki page," if you must. It works sometimes to get a call and response, as I seem to have done here. And spill into Discussion, so here it is.
Worded that way ("often abbreviated UGRR or UGR") it does walk up to an ambiguity or underspecification of how I meant all that. I meant "UGRR often, and UGR as an OCM 3 character (turquoise, if I am being specific about color) badge/shield." In this project, the one we frequently see using that particular renderer. Writing into a wiki is a way of uttering consensus. If some chalk line remains dusty, let's clear it up.
So, UGRR almost every single place I've seen it abbreviated, we agree. UGR as an internal placeholder reality consensus along-the-way mention as to what we do and shall see in OCM as a shield (as Andy told me OCM shield alphanumerics max at three chars). Briefly, it's asserting partly that UGRR is effectively truncated to UGR in OCM renderings AND it's asserting partly some projection of the three characters U, G and R as meaning a particular something in the rcn=* namespace. Yes, they mean "The Underground Railroad Bicycle Route" and I think the tags are in good shape, as I continue to listen. It looks like the wiki says UGRR and UGR (once), then with your changes, uses UGRR as the only abbreviation after that. I'm perfectly OK with that, as "we have all four characters to use" (in wiki-world) rather than the restricted-to-three-characters namespace of rcn. That's all that was. stevea @ 05:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Steve, even though OCM is the preeminent OSM-based cycle renderer, we should still prefer to tag real-world usage over the limitations of a particular renderer. Andy may have good reasons for limiting OCM's badges to three characters, but there certainly are renderers that can handle four. Moreover, there are plenty of bicycle routes that have longer abbreviations, such as the Great Miami River Recreational Trail (GMRRT). (That particular trail has a number, which I've tagged instead, but imagine the state of things before that trail became part of a regional route network.) So anyways, that's why I made that edit.
:^)– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Quasi-national details
We might consider Underground Railroad Bicycle Route (UGR) as a next "national in scope" route candidate to be tagged quasi-national, as at least one state (Ohio) leans towards promoting its UGR segment to USBR 25. Presently, UGR is denoted as several statewide network=rcn routes. As USBR 25 emerges from a UGR segment becoming an approved USBR, should we promote remaining UGR network=rcn segments (>2000 miles) into a named quasi-national network=ncn route super-relation, and include newly-numbered USBR 25 as a member of that new UGR super-relation, similar to how USBR 45 and 45A in Minnesota overlap the identical Minnesota segment of the MRT super-relation? (As Minnesota wishes to brand both MRT and 45 at the same time, these two "separate but identical" routes are an accommodation, they are actually duplicate relations containing identical members). No, this is not a correct approach: UGR is private (not quasi-private, like MRT), so by convention (private routes like ACA's are purposefully "suppressed" in the network hierarchy to no higher than regional) UGR should not be promoted to quasi-national. Please see the USBRS Discussion page.
However, should other states where MRT (but not private UGR) members gain AASHTO approval for their states' segments (if they do), those MRT (but not UGR) state relations can be newly numbered and "trade places" from named to numbered in the named, quasi-national route. This is a method by which a named quasi-national route can be replaced by a numbered USBR route, one state at a time. Curiously, as USBR 7 is one of the earliest USBRs to achieve full completion (in all three states of Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut), it did not "replace" WNEG, as WNEG also exists as a "separate but identical" (to USBR 7) super-relation. This precedes another super-relation potentially including as members both WNEG and Route Verte segments in Canada, when it then makes sense to tag this new route as international (network=icn), diverging from the USBR 7 super-relation which will remain wholly within the US as a distinctly national route.
So, named regional routes which may become quasi-national devoid of segments containing USBR numbered routes don't get tagged network=ncn unless and until one state in the named route "goes first" by gaining a USBR. Then, only as and if other states follow, the route converts (state at a time) from named quasi-national super-relation to numbered national USBR super-relation. This cautious process respects the state-by-state growth of the USBRS and helps prevent the map from "getting ahead of routing."
OSM contains a few bicycle routes published by Adventure Cycling Association (ACA), a national (US focused) non-governmental membership organization promoting long-distance bicycle travel. ACA routes in OSM (correctly tagged cycle_network=US:ACA) get tag "regional" (network=rcn) as they span entire states and frequently cross state lines, so for some routes it may seem to be more correct to characterize scope as quasi-national and promote to network=ncn. But, as ACA route data are private (copyrighted by ACA, not government-published), these actually should not be entered into OSM at all, though a few have been. Unfortunately, these often represent older route data, since improved by ACA, resulting in OSM containing obsolete data. The Discussion page offers a forum to discuss whether these remain network=rcn, or if OSM gets permission to enter them, whether we promote to network=ncn as quasi-national routes, or promote to network=icn when routes cross an international border. A broader topic is whether OSM keeps ACA routes at all, as doing so violates ODBL. Updating ACA routes in OSM (as frequently as ACA updates them) costs significant ongoing editing effort. The quest is on to better clarify this: might ACA accept OSM volunteer editing efforts, provided they meet certain standards? OSM-US and ACA could discuss this topic further, but for now, "only about 2.6" (out of two dozen) ACA routes are entered into OSM. So while it isn't overwhelming, this does get discussed between ACA and OSM, with a consensus that things are presently OK: if ACA routes remain as private (proprietary) routes, OSM minimizes them in the network hierarchy (to regional) to avoid confusion with established national namespaces (the USBRS and what OSM calls quasi-national, quasi-private routes).
Another route may seemingly resonate with "quasi-national bicycle" semantics in OSM: American Discovery Trail (ADT). Described as "the first coast to coast, non-motorized trail," ADT is open to hikers and to an only slightly lesser degree, bicyclists and equestrians. As ADT's "sponsor" ADTS now publishes them, route data seem incompatible with OSM's ODBL: ADTS' "Data Books" cost money and the order page says "not to be posted on the Internet in any form." However, if an OSM volunteer were to ride or hike ADT segments and upload a GPX track, those data may be compatible with OSM's ODBL. Investigation continues while respecting ADTS's request to not upload their published data to "the Internet in any form." (ADT is in OSM in Iowa and parts of Ohio and West Virginia). ADTS proposed legislation (the National Discovery Trails Act, or NDTA) to add ADT to the United States Department of Interior's National Park System endeavor, National Trails System (NTS, a network of scenic, historic, and recreation trails created by the National Trails System Act of 1968). If NDTA becomes law, ADT route data become public domain. In 2014 NDTA was introduced in both the US House and Senate. The bill has passed the Senate three times, and on July 13, 2015, bipartisan legislation to make this happen — NDTA or H.R. 2661 — has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska with Rep. Jared Huffman of California as lead co-sponsor. A WikiProject enters and updates long-distance hiking trails: NTS trails and "Other Interstate Trails" (including ADT). Roads and highways suitable for passenger car travel are not eligible for designation as National Recreation Trails in the NTS: while NTS trails are primarily for hiking, some allow additional travel modalities such as bicycles, equestrians, snowmobiles, roller-skates/blades, or all-terrain vehicles. In OSM, the network=* tag is used for Walking Routes, Cycle routes and many other routes, so use separate relations (for hiking, bicycling, equestrians, with appropriate network=* tag) for each segment (nwn, ncn, nhn...) where a particular travel modality is allowed. Note that network=ncn implies pavement for a road bike, not a mountain bike. With ADT, this likely means a relation which skips a network=* tag altogether and tags route=mtb for those segments where mountain biking is permitted (no pavement). Therefore, while ADT may indeed be semantically "national scope" as an off-road/no pavement bicycle route, no characterization for a network=* tag is necessary since this tag is only used with route=bicycle not route=mtb. If entered, ADT will likely be a very long route=mtb (similar to GDMBR), and so not strictly categorized as quasi-national, as it is not a route=bicycle. stevea @ 22:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
International routes (not) being additionally designated quasi-national
One network=icn route=bicycle, ISL, is also tagged cycle_network=US;CA to denote that it contains components in both countries. This tagging is experimental and may be modified or eliminated. – Stevea (talk, contribs) 21:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Update: There is a new relation tagged network=ncn and cycle_network=US with only the USA segments. Stevea (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I retagged this to be cycle_network=ISL, indeed "eliminating" the tagging done above (before). Stevea (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I assigned cycle_network=US:GLCT to the Lake Michigan Circle Tour (and its alternates). These are fully domestically in the US, though if/as other Great Lakes Circle Tour data enter OSM, it makes sense they become cycle_network=GLCT together, as the remaining routes are international (Canada and US). So, a little bump in the international cycling namespace there, not too bad; growth and its flight path are at least sketched in. There might be a way to assign quasi-national to GLCT, but today's tagging that subordinates into the cycle_network=US namespace (and network=rcn) works for now, then perhaps "more/all go international / top-level-domain together" (all become tagged network=icn and cycle_network=GLCT). Stevea (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I found resources such as these
graphics
here to further extend that there are these (apparently one domestic and four Canadian/US international) bicycle routes. Stevea (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
9/11 National Memorial Trail Route
The September 11th National Memorial Trail Route to link the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York, the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial in Virginia, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania is now designated. OSM might discuss whether this is a fifth quasi-national route (it seems to be). There are also (wiki mentioned) two additional routes (which now might become quasi-national routes #6 and #7) "Great Lakes Seaway Trail" (
Seaway Trail) and how (fully domestic) Great Lakes Circle Trail might become a member of four other (international) Great Lakes routes (part quasi-national, part international?) Discussion welcome. Stevea (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I checked the text of the authorizing bill (now law) and found:
16 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The Trail Route program
17 shall be administered by the Secretary in consultation with
18 the affected landowners, including any Federal, State,
19 Tribal or local agencies that manage the affected lands,
20 but shall not be considered to be a unit of the National
21 Park System or a part of the National Trail System.
So, calling this quasi-national seems to fit our paradigm. A remaining question is whether cycle_network=US or cycle_network=US:USA is correct. The above text seems to indicate the already-existing cycle_network=US:NPS isn't correct, even though (confusingly), the National Park Service (Department of Interior) IS its legal administration. Messy. I'll lean towards cycle_network=US:USA for now, as this is a sui generis entity (as a national bicycle route in the USA): no other "national bicycling route" has (yet) been created by unanimously-passed federal law. A very close second-place (in my opinion) is cycle_network=US as "generically a USA quasi-national route (not belonging to any particular national-level network)." However I'd say a close third (believe it or not) is cycle_network=US:NPS even though its creating legislation (in the text above) says "not considered to be a unit of the National Park System or part of the National Trail System." That feels like looking at yourself and discovering you are "blue" and yet we are told this must be called "orange" or another color. I shrug my shoulders at such logic but I do respect it (that's why it's in last place, yet simultaneously a "close third"). From the website there is a (non-profit?) organization (the "Alliance") who seem to be doing some administration. It also seems there is much room for this to grow, for example the legislation allows the development of a trail symbol and may authorize signage. I advocate the creation of a new network=ncn relation additionally tagged cycle_network=US:USA. And we say there are now five quasi-national bicycle routes in the USA. Stevea (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Seeded as 13527538
13527538. Stevea (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The 9-11 National Memorial Trail (NMT) is a mixed-use trail spanning six states and the District of Columbia. Connecting cities as widespread as Pittsburg, New York, Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Alexandria and Cumberland, it is 2684 km long as reported by waymarkedtrails.org, some of it paved, some of it unpaved. OSM has entered 13527538 13527538 as a quasi-national cycleway route tagged network=ncn, as it isn't strictly one of the numbered routes in the USBRS (the USA's only officially numbered national bicycle network), yet 9-11 NMT is certainly a national-scope route. It is expressed in OSM as a super-relation of 12 (now 13) route relations, cleaving at state boundaries. Pennsylvania has five route relations, a thru route and a loop route among them, New Jersey has two (a thru route and the "Newark Spur"). Other states and DC have one each, although a late addition in Maryland and DC (the "Anacostia Alternative" making the 13th segment) added a "belt" in those two jurisdictions. Uniquely, because of its legislative assertion by the federal US Congress, 9-11 NMT is tagged cycle_network=US:USA, not cycle_network=US like all other quasi-national bicycle routes. After emerging as a final route=bicycle, network=ncn, this may be forked into a national hiking route relation, (route=hiking, network=nwn). Stevea (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) and updates Stevea (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC) and updates Stevea (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC) and Stevea (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
The route is effectively now (June 2022) 100% complete and correct in OSM, although "on the ground" corrections which improve the route relation data are welcome. OSM-US and 9-11 National Memorial Trail Alliance offer a blog post describing history and efforts to enter the Trail into in OSM, and Tasking Manager coordination to add amenities, campsites, drinking water, etc. to selected segments is now sketched in. Huge thanks and congratulations to the Alliance and many in OSM for the absolutely awesome collaboration to complete this! (Updated Stevea (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC) and Stevea (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC) and Stevea (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC) and Stevea (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)) and Stevea (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Natchez Trace Parkway as a new quasi-national
It seems 3346762 3346762 Natchez Trace Parkway (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee) has become the "next" (sixth) quasi-national route. Does it get cycle_network=US ("straight" quasi-national), cycle_network=US:NPS (as National Park Service, a unit of the United States Department of Interior, "sponsors" this route), or perhaps cycle_network=US:USA, like 9-11 Trail (the rationale for that being a unanimous Congressional "mandate", even though it is specifically legislated that the NPS is not it's "sponsor," but it sort of is, though this has been "passed" to a non-profit organization, the 9-11 Trail Alliance)? Stevea (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)