Introduction

Mapping the United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS), now at version 2.2.5 in OSM (incorporating Autumn 2022 AASHTO approvals). "The USBRS is a developing national network of bicycle routes, linking urban, suburban, and rural areas using a variety of appropriate cycling facilities. To date, 55 U.S. Bicycle Routes (USBRs) spanning over 18,953 miles (~30503 km) have been established in 34 states including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state, West Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia. Presently, at least 38 states are currently developing additional U.S. Bicycle Routes. These routes are selected and maintained by state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and designated and catalogued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)." Source: Adventure Cycling Association (ACA). The fully realized System intends to encompass approximately 50,000 miles (>80000 km) of routes as USA's officially-numbered national cycling network. EuroVelo, Earth's current "big dog" wide-area cycling network, continues to grow towards 90000 km.

By using OSM to create high quality maps of this growing network (and wonderful national resource), we can promote its further development and use. OSM is a positive tool for geographic communication of existing and developing bicycle routing at local, state and national levels in the USA!

Approved USBRs in OSM

Since July 2013, OpenStreetMap contains all approved USBRs (or endeavors to do so as routes are newly approved by AASHTO). These are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=ncn, ref=USBR # and cycle_network=US:US. In the Cycle Map layer (OpenCycleMap, or OCM), these display as solid red lines badged with red USBR numbers. Cycle Map also displays proposed USBRs (ongoing proposals distinctly moving towards AASHTO application as USBRs — or better, actual USBR applications before AASHTO on its next ballot) as dashed red lines badged with red USBR numbers. The Cycle Map and CyclOSM renderers display both approved and proposed routes, while the Waymarked Trails: Cycling (Lonvia) renderer displays only approved (not proposed) routes. One route relation representing both directions of a USBR is called a "bidirectional" route; most routes are bidirectional, tagged with forward and backward role tags where necessary to express "only-in-this-direction travel." Two route relations for one USBR (one for each direction) are called "unidirectional." Bidirectional USBRs which traverse a single US state are expressed with a single type=route relation. USBRs which traverse multiple US states (and those which are unidirectional) are expressed as a super-relation (here, a type=route relation containing only other type=route relations). If routes are bidirectional members of a super-relation (one route traversing multiple states), add name=# (Name of state) (where # is USBR number) to each bidirectional member relation, to better distinguish them. If routes are unidirectional and in multiple states, add name=# direction (Name of state) (where direction is [north, east, south, west]). Largely because of disparities in state funding levels, on-the-ground USBR signage improves patchily across the System; about 1/4 of the miles in the System are signed, with either a green or black shield (MUTCD M1-9, see below) plus sometimes a cardinal directional sign (MUTCD M3-1, M3-2, M3-3 or M3-4). Big thanks to Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) for long-time updating the green and black .svg graphics of the shields and tracking which states and routes use which shields.

The great majority (87.5%) of USBRs are fully paved. Notably, USBR 50's segments of both the Great Allegheny Passage (GAP) and the C&O Towpath along the Potomac River are unpaved. As of 2022 USBRS' "trail" subtotal was 2,370 miles.

OpenStreetMap in the US also contains six significant national-scope bicycle routes (which display in OCM as solid red lines badged with red route acronyms), not strictly part of the USBRS: East Coast Greenway (ECG, which both shares and diverges from segments of USBR 1), Mississippi River Trail (MRT, identical to USBR 45 & 45A in Minnesota), Western New England Greenway (WNEG, identical to USBR 7), International Selkirk Loop (ISL), 9-11 Trail, (9-11, in six mid-Atlantic states and DC) and Natchez Trace Parkway (in three southern states). ECG and MRT traverse several states over several thousand miles/kilometers. Hence, these two quasi-private (neither government-sanctioned nor approved by AASHTO, but public data) bicycle routes are determined to be so "national in scope" in the USA that their inclusion in OSM's national cycleway network is asserted as named (not numbered) quasi-national network=ncn routes. WNEG is a third such quasi-national route: while shorter than ECG and MRT, WNEG connects Canada to the Atlantic Ocean at ECG.  ISL crosses the Canadian border and is tagged as two separate relations, one tagged cycle_network=ISL and a USA-only relation tagged cycle_network=US, so ISL is "both" international (via its network=icn tag) and quasi-national (via the separate USA-only relation). network=icn does not render in OCM, but does render in Waymarked Trails: Cycling. 9-11 National Memorial Trail links three memorial sites from New York to Virginia to Pennsylvania. Natchez Trace Parkway NTP, traverses 714 km / 444 miles through Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, the United States' Department of the Interior's National Park Service manages this "mixed use" national resource. As quasi-national routes tagged cycle_network=US, ECG, MRT, WNEG, ISL, 9-11 (as cycle_network=US:USA) and NTP (as cycle_network=US:NPS) exist alongside USBRs in OSM's national bicycle route hierarchy, but are not USBRs (except for USBR 45 and 45A in Minnesota, which are "both" USBRs and part of MRT, noting that USBR 7 is identical to WNEG and 9-11 Trail overlaps other USBRs plus ECG in many places). "9-11" and "9-11 NMT" are defined as alphanumeric or acronymic, not numeric (as these are found as USBR ref=*s).

It is easy to see if a USA national-scope bicycle route is national or quasi-national: national routes (USBRs) display red numbers in their OCM shields, while quasi-national routes (ECG, MRT, WNEG, ISL, 9-11, NTP) display red acronyms in their OCM shields.

If you seek to download USBR GPX files, thanks to ACA who offer these for free download via RideWithGPS (and have no objection to our link). See some historical Discussion about this.

Here are current approved USBRs in OSM:

Proposed USBRs in OSM

Please do not assume that a USBR corridor plus a guess on your part (for example, that there is already a state or regional route through that corridor) "means" that you can or should enter a proposed USBR into OSM. Only do so when you have solid knowledge that there is coordinated statewide activity actively assembling a USBR. This usually happens only as towns and cities along the route, affected counties, and the state Department of Transportation are all communicating and exhibit active and involved coordination, publishing something more substantial than an incomplete or simple draft map: an "active statewide project." (OSM's so-called "high bar standard" for entering a proposed USBR. The subsequent step, immediately prior to approval, is a state application on AASHTO's next ballot, OSM's "very high bar standard.") As the AASHTO approval process completes twice a year (in spring and autumn), a rough timeframe of a route first arriving here, proceeding as an application on AASHTO's ballot then gaining approval and OCM render/display is about six weeks to six months. However, some routes emerge and experience a rapid-growth life cycle, quickly rocketing to Approved, while other routes have languished in this Proposed table for years.

In addition to type=route + route=bicycle + network=ncn + cycle_network=US:US + ref=USBR #, tag such proposed statewide relations with state=proposed. Please add source=Where you learned the route members (e.g. "State DOT web site," "County Bicycle Committee Meeting, 9/9/2020" or "Pending AASHTO application"). Only if a route is a member of a super-relation with other routes sharing the same route number, add name=USBR # (name of state) to better distinguish each state's route as a super-relation member. Two relations (not one route relation representing both directions, but one route relation for each direction) are known as "unidirectional" routes. In this case, keep the ref=* value the same in both routes (an integer, or "integer A-suffixed" like 90A), regardless of direction. For a single-state unidirectional route, include the direction in name=* as: name=USBR 621 north. However, when part of a multi-state super-relation, along with the direction, also include a parenthesised name of the state, as: name=USBR 15 south (Georgia). Include both route relations in a super-relation also tagged type=route + route=bicycle + network=ncn + cycle_network=US:US + ref=USBR # + state=proposed. Let's keep only integers (or "integer A-suffixed") as ref=* values and use name=* consistently, as documented here. In early stages of USBR route creation, tag description=USBR 30 (Ohio) (for example) or description=USBR 30 west (Ohio) if unidirectional, then that key can be changed to name=* if and when the route might become included in a super-relation.

In the earliest stages of an existing network=rcn state route becoming a proposed network=ncn USBR, you may wish to simply add an ncn=proposed tag to the existing state route. In Cycle Map layer, this superimposes a dashed red line on top of the existing solid purple line (with no red numbered shields, keeping the purple numbered shields). If you do this (shortcut), it is correct to eventually update relation tags so they include those in the previous paragraph, as this requires changing the ref=* value from the rcn-numbered (state) route to the ncn-numbered (USBR/national) route. An intermediate status in this scenario may be two relations: initially the state relation, then the shortcut of adding ncn=proposed to the state relation, then two relations (one representing the actual state route, another representing the proposed USBR/national route) which probably stay synced, then (likely) back to a single relation after AASHTO approval (assuming the state relation is deleted, having become "subsumed" by the USBR). In other cases, where a state may choose to not subsume routes, simply keep the statewide regional relation in OSM and add the (new) USBR network=ncn relation (elements between relations are certainly allowed to overlap and often do).

Except for when a route is entered as unidirectional, creating super-relations (containing multiple relations of network=ncn routes, each relation containing road/cycleway members within a single state) is only appropriate for proposed routes when they are simultaneously proposed in multiple states. In this case, create one relation to contain road/cycleway members within a single state and similarly, another relation within another state. Then, if at least two states have an incipient network=ncn route proposed as a single numbered USBR, assemble these into a super-relation with state=proposed. A current example of this is proposed USBR 90 in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana: exactly these three statewide relations are in the super-relation. The states need not be contiguous.

What follows are not yet approved USBRs, they are (often rather historical) proposals with widely varying levels of activity. When at least this level of USBR development activity happens in a state, whether to an existing network=rcn route or with an as-yet-unmapped-in-OSM route, consider tagging the route as above where it is proposed. (Such consideration must meet at least the "high bar standard:" knowledge of a DOT's project to distinctly move towards a USBR application, not simply a corridor or vague draft map, but actual turn-by-turn directions of a largely complete route). As with any route, this means initially creating a properly-tagged relation, then adding/editing member roads/cycleways to that relation. Also, please do your best to keep this wiki table updated with your progress, for example, create a BrowseRelation entry for each new route relation. If you don't or can't update this table, please contact stevea with notes of your progress. Finally, please keep this table synchronized with state registry wikis (for example, Ohio, California).

For the Spring 2023 round, there are intended to be substantial changes to routes in both Alaska and in a future AASHTO Round, Washington state. Rather than a complex series of table entries for these, it is easier to describe them with text, done here. Neither Alaska nor Washington will be adding new routes (though, additional ferry segments are new route proposals to the three "major" Alaska routes, now entered into OSM). Additionally, Alaska proposes to renumber three routes, including fully deprecating USBR 8 in Alaska, which would get renumbered to USBR 87. Similarly, Alaska proposes to renumber USBR 108 to USBR 397 and USBR 208 to USBR 987. In a separate, "future application cycle" by Washington state DOT, WSDOT intends to harmonize existing routing with USBRs 87, 95 and 97 so their northern termini are the Bellingham Fairhaven Cruise Terminal (Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry Terminal). Remaining segments of these three routes (Bellingham northerly) that now extend to Canada at Blaine, Sumas and serve Lynden and Douglas, British Columbia will be renumbered as spur USBRs 197, 187 and 195 (respectively). WSDOT says "these routes will be adjusted such that they branch off of USBR 87, 95, and 97 at a logical location, to be determined. WSDOT intends to apply to make any needed route modifications and to establish the spur routes" to the Canadian border.

Color semantics

About the colors:

Green means that the route proposal(s) data are fully entered into OSM for the state(s) listed in bold and all that remains is AASHTO application and/or approval. After AASHTO approval, the route can be moved from the Proposed section to the Approved section. In Relation(s) column, Green means "unidirectional routes established."

Yellow means "only partially specified" ; additional volunteer work is needed to enter or correct additional route data into OSM. Yellow may also mean a route has (a) volunteer(s) entering data, yet route ambiguities persist.

Red means that "something" (often very little) is known about the early stages of a proposed USBR, so it is useful to put a row in the table about it as a placeholder, but it is too early to create a route relation in OSM: either the state DOT hasn't yet received enough local approvals, a route map is too early a draft, or route data are not yet complete.

Permission by AASHTO to use state USBR application (ballot items) as submitted

OSM-US has explicit permission from AASHTO to enter into OSM routing data from state applications for USBRs ("ballot items") as these are submitted by state DOTs (which may come from a web site with data populated by AASHTO). This permission is documented by Robert Cullen, AASHTO's Information Resource Manager, dated July 31, 2015, sent to the OSM-US Secretary (Alex Barth at the time of request). Thusly, OSM volunteers are welcome to use state DOT application map data (which may come from a web site with data populated by AASHTO) to submit proposed USBRs into OSM. Should such proposed USBR route data be submitted to OSM it is hereby expressly noted they are from an AASHTO publication which has copyright by AASHTO, and that explicit "Permission to reproduce and post these data has been granted to OpenStreetMap US by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials." OSM-US thanks AASHTO for this permission.

See also

• United_States/Bicycle_Networks
• Wikidata's WikiProject U.S. Roads worklist of U.S. Bicycle Route items

A 29 minute video of the history of this project from its early days to about April, 2014, when this was presented at State Of The Map - United States in Washington, DC.