Santa Cruz County, California: Difference between revisions

In 2010, a proposal was made to SCCRTC to superimpose upon the CBM's local-government-published infrastructure a local cycleway network ({{key|network|lcn}}) numbering protocol, colloquially known as '''CycleNet''' (or "CycleNetSZ" in a statewide Caltrans context). The routes and their numbering largely have a one-to-one correspondence with the physical bicycle infrastructure published in the CBM, ideally, the bicycle infrastructure resulting from downloading SCCGIS' latest bicycle shapefile data noted above. [https://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37&layers=C&lon=-122&zoom=12 CycleNet] is simply a set of logical routes proposed as a local network numbering protocol superimposed on the CBM-published physical infrastructure. In introductory stages as it is brought before jurisdictions for discussion and approval, twoan initial routesroute (Walnut-Soquel, which might become lcn or rcn 8, and Freedom Blvd., which might become lcn or rcn 80) werewas introduced into OSM as a proposed {{key|network|rcn}} bicycle route relationsrelation. Additionally, other {{key|network|lcn}} route relations (with {{key|state|proposed}}) have also been introduced, with {{key|network|lcn}} and {{key|route|mtb}} (the latter only for mountain bike routes suffixed with "M" in their {{key|ref|}} tag). Thus, OSM is a venue for geographic communication/visualization of lcn/rcn/mtb bicycle route discussions and public introductions into a numbered local network. A set of tags to render mountain bike routes as both orange lines (in Cycle Map / OpenCycleMap layer) shown from {{key|route|mtb}}, as well as giving them dark blue numbers in the (shared with {{key|network|lcn}}) local address space have been determined, thanks to research via renderers OpenCycleMap (OCM) and Waymarked Trails' (WMT) [http://cycling.lonvia.de Cycling] and [http://mtb.lonvia.de MTB] layers. As local jurisdictions approve these now-proposed routes, {{key|state|proposed}} shall be removed to denote any newly local/legally-sanctioned numbering. Signage on these routes may follow their state going from proposed to approved, so cyclists should not expect route (number) signs on these until jurisdictions approve them. However, believed to beas part of Santa Cruz' "Wayfinding" initiative, bicycle-oriented MUTCD D1-3a / D1-3c signage (named destinations, distances in miles, turn direction arrows), without CycleNet or any other numbering protocol route numbers, began to appear in 2019 and 2020 around Santa Cruz (City and County).

An exception to "no bike route signage" is Pacific Coast Bike Route (PCBR), originally signed by California's DOT, Caltrans. The northern half of Oregon-to-Mexico PCBR — Oregon to Daly City — is now {{key|network|ncn}} and {{key|ref|95}}, as AASHTO approved this in 2021 as USBR 95. The southern-half remainder (Pacifica to Mexico) is believednow to(2024-Q2) besubmitted into planning in 2021AASHTO to becomplete submittedUSBR during95 a subsequentin roundCalifornia. ThisThe believed-becoming-vestigial-with-AASHTO-Approval (public) PCBR should not be confused with the (private) route of the same name by Adventure Cycling Association (ACA); entered into OSM is the public PCBR (Northern California's USBR 95), ACA's private PCBR remains deliberately unentered in OSM, as doing so would violate our ODbL. OCM and Waymarkedtrail's Cycling layer display California's PCBR as "PCB" where known, including Santa Cruz County. Here, PCBR is concurrent with CycleNet 95 as a {{tag|network|rcn}} route, as 95 is "regional" in the sense that proposed rcn 8 and 80 areis regional — together, 8, 13, a short connecting segment of 15, 40, 80 and 95 act as regional "spines" of County bicycle connectivity. (As of 2019 with MBSST opening its first segment in the City of Santa Cruz, which refers to this as the "Coastal Rail Trail" as part of the MBSST Network, "C40" is also {{tag|network|rcn}} here; see below). However, after erecting PCBR signs, Caltrans ceded route definition to local authorities (counties and cities). It was confirmed that ''de facto'' "on the ground" Caltrans PCBR signs contradict the ''de jure'' PCBR asserted by the City of Santa Cruz. The explanation offered (by the City, in city limits) was "Caltrans gave us the authority to change PCBR and we did, though we haven't changed the signs yet." The PCBR that the City asserted appears to be identical to the ACA's PCBR, which OSM does not have permission to enter, as the City said "here is our PCBR." Yet, the City's declaration put this PCBR segment into the public domain, so it was entered into OSM (in the City). In 2019 with the opening of MBSST's first segment, between Hiawatha and West Cliff Drive, the City appears to have rerouted PCBR along the "Beach alignment," (new MBSST / C40) diverging from the ACA route (again, deliberately ''not'' shown in OSM). OSM now displays PCBR through Santa Cruz as the City has defined it to SCCGIS in the "online version" noted above. Hopefully this explains complexities of PCB route/PCBR signage discrepancy history in the City of Santa Cruz. And in 2024 with the pending Approval by AASHTO of the full (Phase I and II) route of USBR 95 in California, virtually the entire old (public) PCBR becomes vestigial. It seems the best course of action to take in OSM is for the PCBR route to migrate to OpenHistoricalMap (OHM) as a historical route which was replaced by USBR 95 in 2024. However, there remain a number of minor belts and spurs of PCBR which differ from USBR 95, again, administered by local jurisdictions. Lacking evidence to the contrary, these should likely remain in OSM (not OHM) to display as "purple alternatives" (in Cycle Map layer, OCM) as belts and spurs off of the dominant USBR (red "thru route" spanning the whole state and largely replacing PCBR).