A fact from United States Bicycle Route System appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
out of interest, why route 76 if there are only two in total!?
It was most likely meant to be similar to the system of U.S. Routes, where odd routes run north-south from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and even numbered routes run east-west from Canada to Mexico. So U.S. Bicycle Route 1 makes sense as it runs close to U.S. Route 1. But U.S. Bicycle Route 76 runs pretty far north of U.S. Route 76, so it's most likely a holdout from the naming of the TransAmerica Bicycle Trail — the trail was established in 1976, so the route was probably named after the bicentennial year. A better number might be U.S. Bicycle Route 60 or so. —Rob(talk)22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waymarked cycle routes in North America, including USBR routes, from OpenStreetMap as of August 2021 Okay, @SounderBruce: would prefer to have no map than slightly broad map. Do what thou wilt, but I only attempted to add a map because of my irritation at its absence as a reader. The text descriptions are fairly worthless to me as someone who had no prior knowledge of this subject. I'll leave it here for the curious. Someone with a better grasp of Overpass syntax than I have can generate a more specific one. Sizeofint (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That map isn't quite helpful though. It shows more than the specific system. That doesn't help a reader isolate the subject routes of this article. Imzadi 1979→02:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map was also not correct, as it shows more routes than currently exist. For example, I see three blue lines in North Carolina, while there is only one USBR route in the state. It was a good attempt, but any version would need have a level of accuracy. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the National Corridor Plan as maintained for AASHTO by the Adventure Cycling Association: https://www.adventurecycling.org/corridorplan Solid lines are designated routes, and dashed lines are corridors (roughly 50 miles wide) where routes could be designated. This map is updated twice per year in sync with the AASHTO approvals of new routes. If you go to this link: https://www.adventurecycling.org/usbrsmaps you can find RideWithGPS maps of every USBR in every state. ACAeditor (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Is {{USRD-wrongdir}}, which you added to this article, intended for U.S. Bicycle Routes? Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards#Route description seems to be geared towards road routes but specifically says to start from the route's official zero milepost. So far, USBRs only have dedicated mileposts to the extent that they travel along dedicated rights of way. Bike paths don't consistently number mileposts in one direction or another. In one case I'm familiar with, the mileposts arbitrarily switched from south–north to north–south when the trail was added to a larger trail system.
If we're to go by unsignposted mileages, the cue sheets and maps that have been submitted to AASHTO so far have been inconsistent, for example:
@Mxn: The USBR system is being governed by the AASHTO, so imposing USRD standards isn't a stretch in my view. As USBRs generally do follow existing highways, which are almost all signed south–north and west–east in the U.S., I think we should look for consistency across articles rather than trying to guess based on DOT applications (not usually written with great care). SounderBruce06:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm pretty sure that some, like USBR 21, are intentionally north–south, but perhaps national consistency matters more. For the routes that do primarily travel on dedicated rights of way and are posted from north to south, such as USBR 21 in Ohio along the Ohio to Erie Trail or USBR 45 in Minnesota along the Mississippi River Trail, perhaps we can leave a note to the effect that Wikipedia is describing the route in the opposite direction as the mileposts. Minh Nguyễn💬07:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The route logs that DOTs submit to AASHTO are supposed to be east to west or north to south. Sometimes this doesn't happen and to date AASHTO has not corrected those that don't follow that convention. The Adventure Cycling RideWithGPS maps (https://www.adventurecycling.org/usbrsmaps) are offered in both directions. USBRs have not had mileposts or mileage markers of any kind, so the mileage in the RideWithGPS cue sheets are the only real reference beyond the route logs submitted by the DOTs. Some of those route logs do not list cumulative mileage and occasionally contain distance errors when compared with OpenStreetMap or Google Maps. ACAeditor (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number of errors in the current USBR page and a large number of updates needed. As a volunteer for Adventure Cycling. While the page reflects some updates from late 2022, there is a large amount of missing history and context, I am not allowed to edit the page due to conflict of interest rules. I would like to partner with someone to supply them with correct and current information to update this page. I can offer specific corrections or provide text to cut and paste. ACAeditor (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up to this, the vast majority of the links in the references to this article are invalid. There needs to be a better mechanism for references because web links go bad so quickly. ACAeditor (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ACAeditor: there are a number of tools at our disposal. Since 2016 or so, a bot has been archiving any external links added to Wikipedia articles, and through its regular work, it adds archive links to citations when the original link goes dead. That process can be done on command as well. I've just invoked that process, so all of the references now link to archived copies where available; if the page is still live, the original copy is the primary link, but if it isn't, the archived copy is the primary link in the citation.
Additionally, I've sent a request to AASHTO for permission and licensing to upload the minutes from the Special Committee on US Route Numbering to Wikimedia Commons. Currently we have copies of the files on Commons from 1927 through 1988, but I'd like to get the remainder uploaded. As part of a long-term project, I've been transcribing those documents on Commons to Wikisource. Using the dedicated citation template, {{AASHTO minutes}}, means that citations to those files will always link to a working copy of the documents hosted someplace. (Editing the template to correct something then corrects all the articles using it at once, greatly simplifying future maintenance.)
As a quick aside, I did not ask for permission and licensing to host application files. Any copyright interests in those files would rest with the individual state DOTs as the creators of those applications, not AASHTO. That is not a project I'm willing to undertake at this time. Imzadi 1979→23:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the references to this article, the links in 17 references fail. Some are simple page not found, at least one requires a log-in, several are AASHTO and Adventure Cycling "wrong page" notices, Here are the reference numbers with the failed links: 10, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56. ACAeditor (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might like to be a partner to help improve this page. What do you see as the priorities?
Tim, thanks for your interest in improving this page. See below for my suggested updates and corrections required. It includes a numbering system section as you suggest. Correcting the ordering would be straightforward. The other text corrects errors and updates the page. Since I am a volunteer with Adventure Cycling, I am not allowed to edit any USBR pages but if you want to cut and paste (and edit as appropriate) plesae feel free to do so. ACAeditor (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TimberFeller, I am still looking for an editing partner for updating the US Bicycle Route pages in Wikipedia. I have a lot of content that should be added, but because I am a volunteer with Adventure Cycling, I am not allowed to edit. I can provide you text and sources which you can verify independently and add to the USBR pages. Please let me know how we can collaborate. ACAeditor (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USBRS was established in 1978 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the same body that coordinates the numbering of Interstate highways and U.S. Routes. The first two U.S. Bicycle Routes were established in 1982 and remained the only two until 2011. Steady growth and interest in the system has followed since. As of June 2023, 23 parent routes (one or two-digit numbers) and 20 child routes (spurs and parallel routes with 3 digit numbers or A appendages) extend 19,643 miles (31,626 km) across 34 states and the District of Columbia. The system, once fully connected, is projected to encompass well over 50,000 miles (80,000 km) of bike routes.
Like United States Numbered Highways and many national routing systems, the U.S. Bicycle Route system is designed to roughly follow a grid. Mainline routes are the major cross-country routes and are represented with one- or two-digit numbers. Even-numbered routes are planned to primarily run east–west, with low-numbered routes in the north and high-numbered routes in the south. Odd-numbered routes will primarily run north–south, with low-numbered routes starting in the east and ascending in number toward the west. Three-digit numbers are assigned to auxiliary routes, with the last two digits denoting the parent that the auxiliary connects to.
Auxiliary routes starting with an odd number are spur routes, either connecting two USBRs or leaving the primary route to a destination. Auxiliary routes starting with an even number leave the main route and rejoin. Some states have used an A to define these as alternates (e.g. USBR 50A).
Much like other routing systems, the grid is sometimes violated; for example, U.S. Bicycle Route 76 (USBR 76) is projected to turn to the north in Colorado and end in Oregon as opposed to California, south of (and temporarily concurrent with) USBR 20 but far north of USBR 50. This is because USBR 76 is a legacy route based on the Adventure Cycling BikeCentennial route created to celebrate the nation’s bicentennial in 1976. As with auxiliary Interstate Highways, two distinct U.S. Bicycle Routes in two different states along the same mainline route may share the same three-digit number without any plan to connect the routes. The first example of this repetition occurred in 2021 with the approval of USBR 230 in Ohio, which is not intended to connect to an existing USBR 230 in Wisconsin.
The existing USBR 1 will be the easternmost route, though USBR 5 will run farther east of it in Virginia and the Carolinas. The westernmost and northernmost routes are USBR 97 and USBR 8, respectively, both of which are in the state of Alaska, but USBR 97 also enters Washington.Outside of Alaska and Washington, the westernmost route is expected to be USBR 95 and the northernmost USBR 8. USBR 90 is expected to be the southernmost route. Despite the analogy the system has to the U.S. Highway system, the USBRS's route numbers do not necessarily trace the same route as the corresponding U.S. Highway number; for example, while USBR 1 will run close to the East Coast and thus parallel U.S. Route 1 (US 1), the projected route of USBR 10 generally follows US 2.
In order for a route to qualify as a U.S. Bike Route, it needs to connect two or more states, connect multiple U.S. Bike Routes, or connect a U.S. Bike Route with a national border.
The USBRS was established in 1978 by AASHTO for the purpose of "facilitat[ing] travel between the states over routes which have been identified as being more suitable than others for cycling."
The first routes were defined in 1982: U.S. Bicycle Route 1 (USBR 1) from North Carolina to Virginia, and the stretch of USBR 76 from Illinois through Kentucky to Virginia. These two routes remained the only routes in the system until 2011. In the interim, only minor realignments routing changes had been made in Virginia.
AASHTO established a new task force in 2003 to study expansion of the system. The task force included state and federal highway officials and representatives from bicycling organizations. In October 2008, AASHTO approved a national-level corridor and route designation plan. Other organizations involved in the effort included state departments of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the East Coast Greenway, the Mississippi River Trail, and the Adventure Cycling Association.
In 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed moving the U.S. Bicycle Route System under the authority of the FHWA as part of a new Office of Livability. In 2009, the FHWA published a new edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that introduced a revised U.S. Bicycle Route shield. Compared to the 2003 edition, the new design swapped the bicycle symbol and route number.
In early May 2011, the first major expansion of the system was made. Five new parent routes, two child routes, and one alternate route were designated created, along with modifications to the existing routes in Virginia and the establishment of USBR 1 in New England.
· U.S. Bicycle Route 1 now has an additional run from the state of Maine to New Hampshire plus short segments in Massachusetts, and full segments in Maryland, District of Columbia, Georgia, and Florida.
· U.S. Bicycle Route 97 is entirely within Alaska, and it runs from Fairbanks, through Anchorage, to Seward plus a segment in Washington State.
In 2012, the FHWA approved the use of an alternative U.S. Bicycle Route marker design on an interim basis. The alternative design departs from the longstanding "acorn" shape in favor of a Reuleaux triangle placed over a green background. As of 2021, the FHWA has given 13 states interim approval to use the alternative design.
Across 2013, several other additions to the system were made. After approval in 2012, signage for USBR 45 in Minnesota was completed in the summer. An expansion of USBR 76 into Missouri was signed in October, and both Tennessee and Maryland entered the system on November 5 with USBR 23 and USBR 50, respectively. Florida has also begun planning on four bicycle routes, including its stretch of USBR 1 and USBR 90.
This section needs to be rewritten in a south-to-north and west-to-east direction to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards for U.S. road articles. Please improve this section if you can.
As of November 2022, there are 31 23 official parent routes in varying stages of completion. In areas where a specific route has not been approved by AASHTO, there is only a prioritized corridor. The 24 20 existing subsidiary and alternate routes are grouped with their one- or two-digit parents. Approved or signposted routes are located in the District of Columbia and 34 states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 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, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Ohio has the most of any state, with eight seven active routes total. Ohio also has the most total distance (1,553 miles, 2,500 km).
I am the Adventure Cycling Association US Bicycle Route System Volunteer Coordinator. I am a volunteer with Adventure Cycling, have been working as a volunteer on the USBRS since 2004, and am not paid in any way by them or anyone else associated with the USBRS. I am a retiree and receive no income from any source other than pension, Social Security, and investments. I say this because I have been informed that I have a conflict of interest and therefore am not permitted to edit any pages associated with the USBRS. This despite the fact that I am actively involved with AASHTO, see all the USBR applications submitted by the DOTs, work directly with the DOTs in developing USBRS and in preparing their applications to AASHTO for USBR designation, and possess the historical documents associated with the USBRS and benefit in no way from providing this information to Wikipedia. ACAeditor (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the following references have bad links (page not found, login required, etc.): 10, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56 ACAeditor (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of talk about adding a map, but unfortunately, at this point in time anyway, there is none. If I might add to the wish list, the map would be perfect if it would clearly differentiate between existing routes and planned routes, plus between safe routes and unsafe routes (with lots of car traffic alongside for instance). Thanks, --2003:C0:8F33:7600:8D1C:DC2A:1:6D66 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
