Hi Ed,

As you can see from the History, tweaking Ross Island Bridge bike permissions is somewhat of a regular tradition here in Portland OSM ;-)

Do you have any written or in-person evidence that bikes are indeed prohibited on the main roadway and required to be on the north path? (Besides the fact that no sane biker would use the roadway). Oregon state law is pretty explicitly permissive about legally allowing bikes just about everywhere except for an extremely small list of exceptions. If you're using some app that utilizes OSM and is routing bikes on the RIB in a way that seems too dicey then we might be able to find a tagging solution that works for everyone.

This shouldn't have much of an effect on anything either way, but can you explain and justify the change from highway=path "This includes walking and hiking trails, bike paths, horse and stock trails, mountain bike trails, as well as multi-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians or similar combinations." to the somewhat more narrowly-defined highway=cycleway & foot=yes?

Hi there,

This road has been tricky to tag correctly since the recent construction. I actually do agree with you that it's technically not oneway=yes. I did some digging (both BikePortland and PBOT have some resources and photos on this) and learned that technically official Parks vehicles are allowed to go around/through the gate to go northbound on the street. There are also some shallow concrete median barriers in the middle of the street between the gate going approx. 300ft north to the ped crossing under the trees. This actually gives a workable option:

1. Because of the physical barriers in the mdedian, we can split the way between the gate and the crossing into two one-way, one-lane ways, each with different access tags.

2. We can then additionally mark the new separate, northbound way as:
access=yes
motor_vehicle=private
bicycle=designated

What do you think?

"Repairs could take up to six months"
https://www.multco.us/bridges/news/stark-street-bridge-remain-closed-several-months-county-works-emergency-repairs

Hi Alex,

All good! I was hoping there was some legal language somewhere that would clear this up, and it looks like you found it. I'm satisfied with the result now.

Thanks again,
-George

Hey Alex,
I keep going back and forth on this one - at first glance it feels right and there's even lane markings and a yellow sign basically saying "bikes onto the sidepath please"...

With that said, the wiki (osm.wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath) states "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory cycleways." I'm not 100% sure that biking on that side path is absolutely legally mandatory here - Oregon law famously states that it's explicitly legal everywhere except a few pieces of the interstates and Hwy 26.

Thinking that maybe a good compromise would be to keep your bicycle=use_sidepath but to add cycleway:right=separate just to make it real clear to any software trip planners.

What do you think?

George
rothg@trimet.org

Hi Alex,
Looks good to me! We're really getting into the weeds with such a complicated intersection. We'll see if anyone else has any input.
Thanks,
-George

Hi Alex,

I mostly agree with you here, though there is what I'd call a short, 1-block cycle track on the east side of 102nd between Holladay and Pacific to enable a bike connection to the NE Pacific neighborhood greenway. It's definitely an interesting situation with both on-street bike lanes and this thing. I'd say it's close to a mix of T4 and S2 on your wiki page.

Thanks for your edits!
George Roth, TriMet
rothg@trimet.org

Thanks archpdx- we're digitizing off an official schematic and some drone photos from Clackamas County and this median was just hard to see. We'll change it back to a divided road.

To keep this consistent with the other MAX platforms, I think we should either revert this to a footway that cuts through the middle of the platform (Example: Willow Creek), or have two short footways extend from the pedestrian crossings on each side of the platform to the two sides of the platform (Example: Hawthorn Farm).

What do you think? I'm open to either of the two proposed options, and kind of hope everyone can decide on just 1 scheme for all MAX platforms.

I didn't touch any of the lanes: tags due to uncertainty about what would be blocked or available during construction. As a result the # of lanes and the backward/forward designations might not make sense for a while.