Bike Trail vs Road Sign?
Hosette-ING
Posts: 3,470 ✭✭✭✭✭
When is something a trail marker for a bike trail and when is it a road sign? I spotted several new wayspots in the area near Stanford University recently and I'm curious about which ones people think should and shouldn't be valid candidates. In all cases I'm using Google street view, and in a couple I've circled the thing that's the main photo to make it easier to find.
For those not familiar with the concepts, bike lanes are just that... they're designated lanes for bicycles on the side of regular roads. Bike boulevards are designated routes for bicyclists. They carry both bicycle and vehicular traffic, but they have better accommodations for bicyclists and enhanced signage cautioning drivers to share the road with cyclists.
#1: Bike lane sign, a designated bike lane on a road.
#2: Bike lane sign with a "Peninsula Bikeway" indicator above it.
#3: A directional marker for a bike lane on the road. The text is "TO DOWNTOWN VIA BRYANT STREET BIKE BOULEVARD".
#4: A directional sign on a bike/pedestrian path next to the road. The text is "BICYCLE BRIDGE TO MENLO PARK".
#5: A "BIKE LANE" sign in an apartment complex.
#6: A bike lane sign on a road, text is, "San Mateo County North-South Route".
Comments
As a big fan of all kinds of trail markers, and being unfamiliar with American signage, non of these signs appear to be trail markers or meeting any eligibility criteria to me.
Working from memory, I believe Giffard’s guideline was that paths in town were supposed to be named, so #6 looks like it rises to the level. The rest are basic street signs.
I like number 2 - not the bit that says bike lane, but the Peninsula Bikeway part at the top. That sounds like a specific route that you would follow.
I would be happy to follow that route on foot.
@Elijustrying-ING The Peninsula Bikeway is essentially a bike commute/travel route in silicon valley. The San Mateo North-South route is essentially the same I believe.
Nº 1 is the only one I would 100% encourage rejecting without a second thought. I think the other ones are circumstantial and depend on is the route is intended for exploration & exercise or simply a marker for transit options for bicycle commuters...and does that matter?
If they are bike routes would that not encourage exercise ( along with low pollution which is an aim ) ?
The website is interesting starting with a photo of kids and lots of family friendly activities to launch the route. The impression from thousands of miles away is, that is not just aimed at a standard commute to work but encourage exercise and exercise an activity to be enjoyed.
I have no idea how these are regarded in the US but it sounds interesting to me.
For the first photo it looks like that sign isn't part of a named bike route, and thus ineligible - most generic "bike lane" signs near me are just another traffic avenue, and I wouldn't say they're overly safe for pedestrian access. An individual lane on a road does not make the whole road worthy of inclusion, any more than a marked pedestrian crossing would be. The above photo #1 seems like more of a warning/utility sign for vehicles than a navigation aid for cyclists.
I carefully used neutral language in my original post because I didn't want to slant the discussion, but now I'll offer my own opinion. These are all very close to my office, and thus I know the area well. I reviewed a couple of them originally and rejected them because they felt more like road signs than bike paths, and then I tucked the thought into the back of my brain to let it cook for a while.
My assessment is this: I feel like Niantic's rules about bike paths are about promoting recreation and exploration, and less about routine transportation. Most of these are transportation-centric, and they are used primarily as commute routes-- most are roads with bike lanes rather than bike paths. I don't even think that #1 has safe pedestrian access-- Sand Hill Road is a heavily-traveled commute route between El Camino and Interstate 280 and the sidewalk stops before the sign. (Here it is in Google Maps.) I don't feel like a bike lane that's on the side of a major road should ever be a wayspot. #6 is on El Camino Real, and ECR is a major road that runs from San Francisco to San Jose (California, USA, for those who aren't familiar.)
I am less bothered by #4 and #5, since they look like separate bike paths rather than bike lanes on a road. Neither one feels particularly high-quality to me but they don't trigger my "NO!" response as strongly.
None of them jump out as eligible at first glance.
I always think of the exploring aspect of trails and commuting routes just don't seem the same, despite the fact they could potentially be used to explore too.
If the Peninsula sign was off-road, I would be more inclined to give that more stars if I'm honest, which shows some bias on my part.