Hi again! I'll revert this change and other similar changes. Please see my previous comment for more info.

Alex

Hi there,

Thank you for your contributions to the trails in Mt. Tabor Park! I agree that bikes can pose a danger to pedestrians on some of the trails. However, it's important that OpenStreetMap accurately reflects legality, even if it seems counterintuitive. For instance, cycling on freeways is allowed in Oregon (except in specific areas like Portland and Medford per OAR 734-020-0045), even though it's dangerous.

According to the official park map (https://www.portland.gov/documents/mt-tabor-park-trail-mappdf), only a couple of trails are closed to bicycles. So, if bicycles aren't explicitly prohibited on a trail, they should be considered allowed.

osm.wiki/Bicycle is a great resource for guidelines on mapping bicycle infrastructure. You might find AI tools like ChatGPT helpful for quick questions or clarifications as well.

That being said, not all trails should simply be tagged with bicycle=yes. Steep trails or trails that are too technical can be tagged with mtb=yes instead. Furthermore, if a trail ends in steps, or if it's covered in woodchips, too narrow, it might not be necessary to add a bicycle tag at all, as those footways aren't very suitable for cycling. But, at the same time, cycling isn't prohibited there. So they shouldn't have bicycle=no tags.

Thanks again for contributing to OSM, and I hope you’ll consider reverting the changes.

Alex

No worries at all. Both approaches (mapping bike lanes as separate ways vs adding cycleway tag to the main road) "are in use today, and there is discussion about when to prefer which method", as documented on osm.wiki/Bicycle. So there are no hard rules about mapping bike lanes. Only community consensus and standards from local mapping groups. AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful in cases like this because they can aggregate and summarize long discussions happening on OSM forums.
Thanks again for contributing to OSM!

Hi again,

I am going to proceed with removal of those separately mapped bike lanes on Denver, Interstate, Willamette and Rosa Parks. Please let me know if your have strong objections.

Thank you,
Alex

Hi Ryan!

I noticed that you mapped the bike lanes on the Interstate Avenue and the Denver Street as separate ways in this changeset. Generally, in OSM, bike lanes that are just painted on the road (or even physically separated by a small curb or buffer) are tagged using the cycleway=lane or cycleway=track tag directly on the main road. This helps to keep the map data simpler and more accurate. Separate ways are usually reserved for cycle tracks that are completely separate from the road infrastructure (e.g., bike paths in parks or those with their own distinct right-of-way).

In Portland, other bike lanes are also tagged this way rather than mapped as separate ways, to maintain consistency across the city's map data.

Additionally, mapping bike lanes both as separate ways and tagging them on the main road results in the lanes being mapped twice, which can be confusing and inaccurate. When bike lanes are mapped separately, the main road should be tagged with cycleway=use_sidepath. This indicates that cyclists should use the separate path, as riding on the main road is prohibited in such cases due to ORS 814.420 (Failure to use bicycle lane or path).

Also, if bike lanes are mapped separately, they need to be connected to the same intersecting streets as the main road. For example, the northbound bike lane on Denver Street should be connected to North Saratoga Street and North Liberty Street. Similarly, the eastbound lane on North Willamette Boulevard should connect to North Wayland Avenue, North Foss Avenue, North Hurst Avenue, etc. Without these connections, bike routing tools like Strava, Ride with GPS, and Komoot won't allow cyclists to make these turns because the tools don’t recognize that such turns are possible.

Another issue with separately mapped bike lanes is that they often don't have names, which can cause bike routing tools to use less detailed instructions. Instead of saying "turn left on Denver Street," they might just say "turn left," making the directions less clear for cyclists.

So that's why it's recommended to add the cycleway tag to the main road instead of mapping bike lanes separately.

There is a similar issue in changeset/152475058, where bike lanes on Rosa Parks and North Willamette were mapped separately.

Could you please consider removing those separate ways for bike lanes? Thanks for contributing to OSM! And please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Thank you,
Alex

Hi again,

I am going to tag way/1102431688 as a footway instead of a cycleway since that path is primarily for pedestrians. Let me know if there are any objections and we discuss reverting my changes.

Thank you!

Hi there,

Question about way/1102431688. I wonder why it was tagged as a cycleway? I just rode a bike by it and it doesn't look like infrastructure for bikes - it's narrow, bumpy, almost disappears sometimes, no signs/indication that it's for bikes, too narrow to pass a pedestrian. It looks like a footway for people that live in the Northwest Heights to have a walk or walk to other streets in the area. Bikes can technically ride on it as on any footway. What's the source of the name (Skyline Trail)?

Thank you,
Alex

I double-checked this street again today. There is indeed signs like "Private Property / No trespassing / No soliciting".

Hi George,

Thanks for checking my changes and for the feedback!

I think the use of "use_sidepath" is justified because the Oregon law ORS 814.420 (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_814.420) which prohibits the use of a roadway if there is a bike lane or path.

That sidepath looks like the continuation of the bike lane so I think riding there is mandatory according to ORS 814.420. But I can be wrong.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks again,
Alex

This intersection isn't unique. Other intersections on Division are like that so, for consistency, this intersection shouldn't differ from other intersections.

Oops. I meant to say "I-84".

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Safety/Documents/OregonBikePedDriverRules.pdf page 25

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions;

1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to
use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or
bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

Hi George,

Thank you for catching this issue! It should be corrected now. I hope. I followed the same approach as way/840336907 which is a similar situation.

Your feedback about the correction would appreciated. I am still new at this.

Thank you,
Alex

I'll go ahead and delete the separate cycleways since it's recommended not to have separate ways for bike lanes (compared to bike tracks) per ref L1a on osm.wiki/Bicycle.

Hmm. Apparently, cycleway:advisory=use_caution is not a thing (the road has RLIS:bicycle=caution_area tag but it's not a standard tag). I'll still revert the change just because adding inaccurate info in OSM is not how this type of routing issues should be fixed.

I am going to revert this change since it looks like a workaround and not a proper fix. Cycling is allowed on the bridge by law and OpenSteetMap should reflect that even if cycling there is dangerous. I am going to add cycleway:advisory=use_caution tag. Hopefully, it will tell routing apps to avoid the bridge. If any particular app continue to route through the bridge, please submit a defect for that app.

Hello! I see that you added separate lines for cycleways on one section of the Northeast 102nd Avenue (between Wasco and Glisan). I'd like to either delete those separate cycleways or mark the main street with bicycle=use_sidepath. Otherwise, the cycleway/bike lane is represented on the map twice.
I'd prefer to delete them though since only small section of the Northeast 102nd Avenue has separate lines for cycleways. Alternatively, I could extent the cycleways all the way north and south.
What do you think about it?