Bicycle Routing: Default Dismount Access On Footways?
Navigating urban landscapes on a bicycle often presents unique challenges, especially when it comes to pedestrian zones and footways. The core question revolves around whether bicycle routing systems should default to allowing dismounted bicycle access on footways and pedestrian highways, areas currently often excluded by routing algorithms like Valhalla. This article delves into the complexities of this issue, exploring the arguments for and against such a default, and examining the implications for cyclists and pedestrians alike.
Understanding the Current Bicycle Routing Landscape
Currently, many bicycle routing systems, including Valhalla, operate under the assumption that bicycles should not be routed over highway=footway and highway=pedestrian unless specific tags indicate otherwise. These tags include bicycle=dismount, bicycle=yes, or bicycle=permissive. This approach is rooted in a desire to avoid conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians and to adhere to local regulations that may prohibit cycling on footways. However, this rigid exclusion can sometimes lead to inefficient or impractical routes for cyclists, particularly in dense urban environments where footways may offer the most direct or safest passage.
The critical challenge lies in balancing the needs of cyclists with the safety and comfort of pedestrians. While some footways may be wide and lightly trafficked, others may be narrow and heavily populated, making cycling, even when dismounted, a potential hazard. The current system, while erring on the side of caution, may inadvertently force cyclists onto busier roads with higher traffic volumes and increased risk of accidents. This is where the debate for a more nuanced approach, one that considers dismounted access as a default, gains traction.
To further illustrate, consider a scenario where a cyclist needs to traverse a busy intersection. The designated bicycle route might involve a significant detour around the intersection, while a footway directly crossing the intersection could offer a much safer and more direct route, provided the cyclist dismounts and pushes their bicycle. In such cases, the current routing systems' exclusion of footways might lead to a less safe outcome for the cyclist. The proposal to default to dismounted access aims to address these scenarios by allowing the routing system to consider footways as a viable option, albeit with a degree of avoidance to prioritize dedicated cycling infrastructure and pedestrian spaces where cycling is explicitly permitted.
The Case for Default Dismount Access
The central argument for defaulting to dismount access is that pushing a bicycle on a footway is generally legal and safe in many jurisdictions, especially when done considerately at walking speed. This approach recognizes the reality that cyclists often need to use footways to navigate obstacles, avoid dangerous road conditions, or access destinations directly. By assuming that dismounting is a reasonable option, routing systems can offer more flexible and practical routes.
Consider the practicality: In many urban settings, footways serve as vital connectors, linking cycling paths and providing access to amenities that are not directly accessible by road. Forcing cyclists to strictly adhere to roadways can lead to unnecessary detours and increased travel time. Furthermore, dismounting and pushing a bicycle is a common practice, particularly in areas with high pedestrian traffic or narrow pathways. By acknowledging this behavior, routing systems can better reflect real-world cycling patterns and provide more accurate and useful directions.
Another key benefit of defaulting to dismount access is the potential for improved safety. As mentioned earlier, strict avoidance of footways can push cyclists onto busier roads, where they are more vulnerable to accidents. By allowing routing systems to consider footways as an option, cyclists can choose routes that prioritize safety, even if it means dismounting and pushing their bicycle for a short distance. This is particularly important for vulnerable cyclists, such as children or elderly individuals, who may feel less comfortable navigating heavy traffic. The proposed approach also aligns with the principle of prioritizing vulnerable road users, a key tenet of sustainable transportation planning.
The implementation of this default would not necessarily mean that cyclists are routed onto footways indiscriminately. The suggestion is that these ways should still be “somewhat strongly avoided” unless they offer significant shortcuts or safety advantages. This can be achieved through algorithmic adjustments that assign a higher cost to footways compared to dedicated cycling infrastructure or roads with lower traffic volumes. This ensures that footways are only used when they provide a clear benefit, such as avoiding a dangerous intersection or accessing a destination that is not easily reached by road. This nuanced approach aims to strike a balance between providing cyclists with more routing options and minimizing potential conflicts with pedestrians.
Addressing Concerns and Potential Drawbacks
While the concept of default dismount access offers several advantages, it also raises legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The primary concern is the potential for increased conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Footways are primarily designed for pedestrian use, and introducing bicycles, even when dismounted, can create friction and compromise pedestrian safety and comfort. This is particularly true in areas with high pedestrian traffic, such as shopping streets or tourist areas.
To mitigate these concerns, it is crucial to implement this approach thoughtfully and with appropriate safeguards. One key safeguard is to ensure that the routing algorithm prioritizes dedicated cycling infrastructure and roads with lower traffic volumes whenever possible. Footways should only be considered as a viable option when they offer a significant advantage in terms of safety or efficiency. Additionally, the routing system should take into account the width and traffic levels of the footway, avoiding narrow or heavily trafficked footways unless absolutely necessary.
Another important consideration is the potential for confusion and inconsistency. If some footways are designated as dismount zones while others are not, cyclists may find it difficult to determine where they are allowed to push their bicycles. This can lead to unintentional violations and further conflicts with pedestrians. To address this, clear and consistent signage is essential. Dismount zones should be clearly marked, and cyclists should be educated about the rules and etiquette of sharing footways with pedestrians. This could involve public awareness campaigns, educational materials distributed by cycling organizations, and even in-app notifications from routing applications.
Furthermore, the legal implications of default dismount access need to be carefully considered. While pushing a bicycle is generally legal on footways in many jurisdictions, there may be local regulations that prohibit it in certain areas or under specific circumstances. Routing systems need to be able to account for these local variations and avoid routing cyclists onto footways where dismounted cycling is prohibited. This requires access to accurate and up-to-date legal information, as well as the ability to incorporate this information into the routing algorithm. It also highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between cycling advocates, pedestrian groups, and local authorities to ensure that regulations are clear, consistent, and reflect the needs of all road users.
The Role of OpenStreetMap (OSM) Tagging
OpenStreetMap (OSM) plays a crucial role in the feasibility and effectiveness of default dismount access. OSM is a collaborative, open-source mapping project that provides the data used by many routing systems, including Valhalla. The accuracy and completeness of OSM data directly impact the quality of bicycle routing. In the context of dismount access, the tagging of footways and pedestrian highways is particularly important.
Currently, OSM uses a variety of tags to indicate whether bicycles are allowed on footways, including bicycle=yes, bicycle=no, bicycle=dismount, and bicycle=permissive. However, the consistency and completeness of this tagging can vary significantly from region to region. In some areas, footways may be accurately tagged with detailed information about bicycle access, while in other areas, the tagging may be incomplete or missing altogether. This inconsistency poses a challenge for routing systems, as they rely on accurate tagging to make informed decisions about routing cyclists onto footways.
To effectively implement default dismount access, it is essential to improve the tagging of footways in OSM. This involves a concerted effort from the OSM community to review and update the tagging of footways, ensuring that they accurately reflect the legal status and suitability of dismounted cycling. This includes adding tags to indicate whether dismounted cycling is permitted, as well as tags that provide additional information about the footway, such as its width, surface, and level of pedestrian traffic.
Furthermore, there is a need for greater consistency in the use of OSM tags related to bicycle access. The current variety of tags can be confusing, and there is a lack of clear guidance on when to use each tag. This can lead to inconsistencies in tagging, making it difficult for routing systems to interpret the data accurately. To address this, the OSM community should work together to develop a clear and consistent tagging scheme for bicycle access on footways. This would involve defining the meaning of each tag, providing examples of its use, and developing guidelines for how to tag different types of footways. A standardized tagging system would significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of bicycle routing, making it easier for cyclists to navigate urban environments safely and efficiently. The OSM community has shown a remarkable capacity for collaboration and data improvement, and this challenge presents an opportunity to further enhance the value of OSM as a resource for sustainable transportation planning.
Valhalla and the Implementation of Default Dismount Access
Valhalla, as a leading open-source routing engine, is well-positioned to implement default dismount access. Valhalla's flexible architecture and sophisticated routing algorithms allow it to incorporate a wide range of factors into its routing decisions, including road type, traffic levels, and bicycle access restrictions. By adjusting the cost factors associated with different road types, Valhalla can be configured to somewhat strongly avoid footways while still considering them as a viable option when they offer a significant advantage.
To implement default dismount access in Valhalla, several steps would need to be taken. First, the routing algorithm would need to be modified to treat footways as potentially accessible for dismounted cycling. This would involve adjusting the cost factor associated with footways to reflect the fact that they are generally less desirable than dedicated cycling infrastructure or roads but may still be preferable to a longer or more dangerous route. The specific cost factor would need to be carefully calibrated to ensure that footways are only used when they provide a clear benefit.
Second, Valhalla would need to be able to accurately interpret OSM tags related to bicycle access. This involves ensuring that Valhalla can correctly identify and process tags such as bicycle=yes, bicycle=no, bicycle=dismount, and bicycle=permissive. As discussed earlier, the consistency and completeness of OSM tagging is crucial for the success of this approach. Valhalla's developers could also explore the use of additional OSM tags, such as those indicating footway width or pedestrian traffic levels, to further refine the routing algorithm and avoid routing cyclists onto unsuitable footways.
Third, Valhalla could incorporate user preferences into its routing decisions. This would allow cyclists to customize their routing preferences, indicating whether they are comfortable with dismounting and pushing their bicycle on footways. This would provide a more personalized routing experience, allowing cyclists to choose routes that best suit their individual needs and preferences. For example, a cyclist who is comfortable dismounting and pushing their bicycle might choose a route that includes a short section of footway, while a cyclist who prefers to avoid dismounting might choose a longer route that stays on dedicated cycling infrastructure or roads. This level of customization would enhance the usability and appeal of Valhalla as a routing engine for cyclists.
Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Bicycle Routing
The question of whether bicycle routing should default to dismount access on footways and pedestrian highways is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. The current approach of strictly excluding footways can lead to inefficient or unsafe routes for cyclists, while defaulting to dismount access raises concerns about pedestrian safety and comfort. However, a balanced approach, one that considers dismounted cycling as a potential option while prioritizing dedicated cycling infrastructure and pedestrian spaces, offers the best path forward.
By carefully calibrating routing algorithms, improving OSM tagging, and incorporating user preferences, it is possible to create routing systems that provide cyclists with more flexible and practical routes without compromising pedestrian safety. This requires ongoing dialogue and collaboration between cycling advocates, pedestrian groups, local authorities, and the open-source mapping community. By working together, we can create urban environments that are safer and more accessible for all road users. This approach aligns with the principles of sustainable transportation planning, which emphasizes the need to create transportation systems that are environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially equitable. Ultimately, the goal is to create cities where cycling is a safe, convenient, and enjoyable mode of transportation for everyone.
For further information on OpenStreetMap and its role in routing, consider visiting the OpenStreetMap Wiki. This resource provides comprehensive details on tagging conventions and best practices for mapping bicycle infrastructure.
