I am aware that USBR 15, at least as to the planning & route designation, is well along. As I live very close to a segment that is live (since at least 2005), I have yet to see any physical signage. Is this a normal situation ? I ride parts of the Nature Coast State Trail at least 1 or 2 times per week. Other segments that are designated for USBR 15 have had no actual construction as yet. The Florida Big Bend segments of USBR 15 follow a historical railroad corridor once known as ‘The Perry Cutoff’.
AASHTO does not require USBRS to be signed, it’s up to the state/local DOT to do it, and many have decided that it’s not (yet) in their budget. New Hampshire’s segment of USBR 1 was approved in 2011 but wasn’t signed until a few years ago.
As we generally do for highway routes, if an extensive section of the USBR lacks USBR signs, then we should map that section as an unsignposted route: the ways along that section should be part of a separate route relation tagged unsigned_ref=15 instead of ref=15, and this route relation should be added to the statewide route relation. (Or, if this is the case throughout Florida, the existing statewide route relation can simply have unsigned_ref=15.) A renderer, router, or manually inspecting mapper will know not to expect signs there, even though it officially forms part of the route.
U.S. Bicycle Route 15 in Florida was completed such that its connection to USBR 15 in Georgia and its concurrence with USBR 90 now extends southerly through the state to Homestead. As of June (2024), this route is fully planned and designated, though it likely isn’t fully signed, given the recency of the designation.
My source (in Adventure Cycling Association who coordinates state DOT submissions of USBRs to AASHTO for Approval into the System) says the USBRS as a whole is “about 25% signed, with improvements to signage ongoing as funding allows.” This signage funding happens state-at-a-time, route-at-a-time, and in the case of USBR 15 in Florida is likely paid for by FDOT or counties through which the route traverses. So, yes, this is a normal situation, as are / will be ongoing signage improvements. There isn’t (usually) any actual “construction” associated with a USBR, except for particular segments where perhaps some new bicycle infrastructure is built so it can be designated as part of the USBR; such new construction is always completed before the route is officially AASHTO-designated. And then, as funding allows, signs are erected.
While Minh’s suggestion above is technically true, it’s infrequent that unsigned_ref=* is tagged on USBRs, though it certainly could be by an intrepid mapper.
Looking at OSM’s glass as half-full in this regard, the relative prevalence of “less-than-fully-signed” USBRs makes for a great case to “find your way” (as a cyclist) using OSM data!
Are we saying the same thing ? I’m not sure that we are, but maybe we are.
The parts of USBR 15 that I am personally familiar with are:
Perry FL to Cross City FL, railroad right of way from ~1900. No rails there now and no bicycle path infrastructure. Lines are drawn on the FL-DEP map for a multi-use trail, when funding is available. FL-DEP may actually hold title to the RoW.
Cross City FL to Wilcox FL to Chiefland FL, This segment was built out between 2000 and 2005, and currently operates as the Nature Coast State Trail (under FL-DEP, Office of Greenways and Trails)
Chiefland FL to Dunellon FL, railroad right of way from ~1900. No rails there now and no bicycle path infrastructure. Lines are drawn on the FL-DEP map for a multi-use trail, when funding is available. FL-DEP may actually hold title to the RoW. A nat-gas pipeline currently exists on this RoW.
Above Perry and below Dunellon, I am not personally aware of the status, beyond what the FL-DEP maps indicate.
From a logical perspective USBR 15 has routing. From a physical infrastructure perspective, work remains to be done.
Wow, @NitaRae, thanks for these details. I entered this route into OSM (during the Spring 2024 “Round” as AASHTO calls it) as it was submitted by FDOT to AASHTO. AASHTO waved the checkered flag on this USBR 15 (extension) in Florida with their Approval of FDOT’s Application this June (2024).
As of now, I am not sure we are “saying the same thing,” as I’d have to “get closer down on the ground” (like with good satellite imagery) than I did when I entered this route in March and April. I do recall while I was doing this, the route seemed to “hew to highways” (and some parallel “side path” cycleways if my memory is correct) the entirety of the route. I believe I correctly entered this USBR, though I do recall some pretty desolate (un- or very sparsely-populated, swampy-swale-lowlands, parallel to a gas-pipeline and power towers…) long and seemingly lonely stretches of roadway. It used to be almost non-existent for me to “feel,” as a cyclist would, a USBR I enter, but I’ve gotten better at this over the thousands of miles I’ve “ridden,” er, mapped in OSM.
While your “personally familiar” segment list is nicely detailed, are you able to assert that the route (as it displays in OSM’s Cycle Map layer, also try the route relation link) has seriously wrong segments, like “there is no road or highway here for a cyclist to traverse?” If so, please call out specific locations of this to my/our attention!
Edit: It is important to note that a USBR can travel on roadways (such as in a bike lane or “generous” shoulder), a dedicated highway=cycleway, (this is nice, but isn’t required for USBRs), or even a dirt path (for a minority of the system, such as the Great Allegheny Passage for a segment of USBR 50). In my opinion, USBR 15 in Florida, like most USBRs, is on a mix of highway and cycleway.
This is where the subject of riding a bicycle (at least in this FDOT district, possibly most of the state) gets somewhat convoluted. In separate correspondence with the Lake City FDOT office, and asking for clarification about some bike symbols that appeared on newly refinished pavement, I was told that the shoulder (typically 3-4 feet of pavement outside of the travel lane (used by motor vehicles) was allowed to be used for bicycles. The reason I saw the two instances of the bike symbols on some right-turn deceleration lanes, was to warn motorists that bikes had the usage of this (mostly invisible) bike transit on the shoulder. They do not advertise it prominently (other the what prompted my inquiry) because of safety concerns.
Now we get to the question of the hour … is FDOT (in conjunction with FL-DEP) going to use those stealth bike passage lanes to backfill the missing segments of USBR 15 ? I hope not, but I am aware that a few brave individuals have used the paved shoulder on US-19/98 to make a long distance run, because there was no viable alternative.
I don’t mean to drag this subject through the mud, but I’m trying to figure out what their intention is, in lieu of having proper infrastructure.
I don’t think “drag through the mud” is going on; we seem to have landed firmly. It seems FDOT specified USBR 15 from Homestead up to its north-state intersection with USBR 90 (which has always been there). The shiny-new “version Spring 2024” USBR 15 that was recently AASHTO-Approved) is from USBR 15 south (along its earlier stub) and extends to Homestead.
That is USBR 15 as FDOT proposed it to AASHTO in its (FDOT’s) Application (to AASHTO).
NitaRae (if I may so address you) believes this is “existing route with certain infrastructure” that seems FDOT-specific (pavement markings). Her implication is that this routing is dangerous for cyclists if it is the only thing available as a “can’t ride there any other way, honey, and I’d only do it if my life might depend on it.” If I get that sentiment wrong, please accept my apology for a bad guess.
This isn’t farfetched or unreasonable at all. I mean I hear something like “what the heck?” in Florida, and I’m scratching my head, not nodding my head.
It’s entirely possible the USA has a “red, national-level, numbered route” (for cyclists) that may not be entirely ridable, lest one get pretty, danky, dangerous. I’ll say that USBR 95 (at the Caltrans / DOT level) said “nope” to the “Pendleton Gap.” Just said “we don’t include that segment in this route.” A national route is a real route, not a route that isn’t carefully selected and presented.
It throws into question, what, specifically, is wrong about the present route? Where might it be asserted are segments without proper bicycle infrastructure?
I think that’s what channel we are on, about or so. (Again, no dragging through mud here, we’re swimming, water seems fine).
I might as well add this as a separate post: improvements to infrastructure (say, new dedicated highway=cycleway which might exist in the middle-future along present right-of-ways, or whatever improvements arise in the future) simply require an amended DOT Application (with changes, as a “realignment”) to AASHTO.
“Grow your own.” (National bicycle network numbering protocol). It’s a System (the USBRS). It grows. It’s “about 40%” (I’d say more) done. The corridors are there, many spines and branches exist. Sure, there are “half-ish as gaps” (for now, as of 2024) but USBRS stretches from Alaska to San Diego to Maine to Key West. 15 (in Florida, Georgia…) exists, it is real. It’s built out of “bones:” roads and bridges and cycleways. Flesh and blood and pulse and life arrive with parallel spiral stairs and brand-new-pavement-along-ROW and cyclists and growth in the network and essentially constant improvements. Some years there are realignments, adding nice new infrastructure. The System is very much alive.
There really are such things as “I wouldn’t ride there.” And, we have a USBRS.
After sleeping on this, meditating a bit, and actually using the shoulder strip on US 19/98 this morning (for about 1/2 mile), this is where I think it sits …
The segment northwest of Cross City, and up to Perry, the old railroad bed diverges from the path of US 19/98 (4-lane). I have not been up there to inspect it, but my understanding is that the rails and cross-ties were removed when the tracks were abandoned (probably around 1990). The ballast gravel is likely still in place, but is being overgrown by weeds. Mapping USBR 15 along the old rail corridor is probably not useful there, because only the most hardy off-road bike can get thru there, and that assumes that the bridge over the Steinhatchee River is still passable. For now, that segment has to follow US 19/98.
The segment below Chiefland to Dunellon - From Chiefland to Lebanon Station, the old railroad bed ran parallel to US 19/98 (4-lane), and within is 100-150 meters. So mapping it on the old rail corridor (which not specifically valid) is close enough to the main highway. I am aware that there are a few small bridges on the old railroad corridor, which may be in various states of decay. Those have to be rebuilt before a proper bike trail is brought to life. Beyond Lebanon Station, and across to Dunellon, the railroad corridor passes thru the Goethe State Forest, and runs parallel to a state highway (2-lane).
Usage of the highway shoulder, and how safe it is, is somewhat dependent on how many lanes the highway has. For a 2-lane highway (e.g. SR-26, etc) the drivers flowing in the same direction as the bike rider have little choices when trying to give the bike extra room. On a 4-lane highway, vehicles in the outside lane near the bike rider, can usually slide left a bit and give some safety margin. The usage of the US 19/98 shoulder, while not optimal, can be done if everyone pays attention. Probably 90%+ of the vehicles passing my bike this morning, did yield a bit of extra room.
This page expresses the Florida DEP, Office of Greenways and Trails, Status of the Nature Coast Regional Connector: https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/Status%20of%20Nature%20Coast%20Regional%20Connector_0.pdf
Based on that map, the extensions (northwest, southeast, and east) to the nature Coast State Trail are yet to be programmed, so my conclusion is that US 19/98 (north to Perry, and south to Lebanon Station) plus state roads (west of Perry, and between Lebanon Station and Dunellon) are the only paths that USBR 15 can follow in the near term. Anyone with better information, please change my mind.
Nice reply! I’m in listening mode; let’s see where this goes.
Again a double-post by me. @NitaRae, you seem to think that USBR 15 is mapped on a railroad bed that runs along US 19. This is not the case, as the route is mapped on the highway. Same with the segment south of Chiefland. Please try (once again?) clicking on the route relation link (blue text above) and zoom in close to where you think USBR 15 is on gravel / ballast of an old railroad, as I don’t think it is.
It MIGHT be possible that maps of some Florida agency (-ies, like FDOT in conjunction with FL-DEP) indicate to you that in some future date, these could be IMPROVED cycleway, which might then get REALIGNED INTO the present-day USBR 15, but that isn’t present-day 15. Clicking “the route relation link” (or where Cycle Map layer indicates the route with a red solid line and “15” shields) displays the route as a whole, and keeps it “orange highlighted” until you deselect it. If you do click that link, give your browser as long as 30 seconds to 2 minutes (if you have slower hardware or a dawdling 'net connection) to fully display the route.
With good continuing dialog, I think your concerns are being addressed. Still listening as to where, specifically, the existing (mapped) USBR 15 is wrong. You might be correct, but the route “as is” is believed correct. We’re still listening here!
Edit: Again, USBR was FDOT-applied-for and AASHTO Approved in June. I have looked at your Florida Department of Environmental Protection (a different division of state government from FDOT) and see it specifies “Florida Wildlife Corridor” and “Nature Coast Regional Connector” with both Programmed and Existing segments across eight Florida counties. If there is an intersection between these and USBR 15, you have not specified it and I do not see it. What this has to do with USBR 15 is beyond me (without your further specific explanation) and seem wholly up to Florida state government. And OSM is not that, though if our data indicate we are misunderstanding something, please specifically explain.
What began this interchange, is when I was mapping some sun-shelters (along the existing portions of the Nature Coast Trail), I noticed that USBR 15 had been overlaid on the trail. From that, and possibly my error, I took it that USBR 15 had been laid down upon the entire NCST, plus the unfinished segments. If not, then my bad, and I apologize.
1 Like
Thanks for your (sun-shelter, other…) mapping in OSM. And no problem with “seeing things” that might or might not be there (as mapped) — I think we now have this more-or-less figured out. Sometimes I have to zoom way into things (using satellite imagery) to see that they ARE or AREN’T on (a road, a railbed, an improved cycleway, a dirt track…) and if something is mapped “through a parallel corridor” it can be difficult to tell one thing from another and/or easily be misdirected. Heck, sometimes when I map USBRs, it isn’t always clear whether the route is on “sidepath” (a colloquialism among people who design, build, route, map, designate… these things) or if it is on “the highway” (that might mean a road with a bike lane, a highway with a shoulder…other similar things).
Keep on mapping, keep on enjoying mapping in OSM!