United States Bicycle Route System

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Flag of United States Part of United States mapping project.

Introduction

Mapping the United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS), now at version 2.2 in OSM (incorporating Spring 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 18,534 miles (~29828 km) have been established in 33 states including Alaska, Arizona, 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 (80470 km) of routes as USA's officially-numbered national cycling network. Earth's current "big dog" wide-area cycling network ([W] EuroVelo) 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!

CycleLayer2.png
An international cycling map created from OSM data is available, provided by Andy Allan. The map rendering is still being improved, the data are updated every few days. It shows National Cycle Network cycle routes, other regional and local routes, and other cycling-specific features, such as:
  • dedicated cycle tracks and lanes
  • contours and hill colouring
  • bicycle parking
  • bike shops, toilets, drinking fountains, even pubs!
  • proposed bike routes (or numbering protocols), contrasted with the Lonvia map, below, which does not show proposed routes, but actual routes only

http://www.opencyclemap.org/

CyclOSM A free cycle-oriented map with more features than OpenCycleMap. See its wiki page CyclOSM.
Waymarked Trails: Cycling by Sarah Hoffman is a layer superimposed over mapnik (Standard Map Layer) which shows marked cycle routes around the world. Updated minutely, it renders actual routes without the state=proposed tag. Therefore no proposed routes (or proposed numbering protocols) are displayed.

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 (87.3%) 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. Current (2022) USBRS "trail" total is 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 long 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 acronym, not numbered routes (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:

Route Relation State(s) and notes Shield(s)
United States Bicycle Route 1 relation 3022887 Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (Phase I and II segments), Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida.
US Bike 1.svg
US Bike 1 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 1A relation 1770834 Maine
US Bike 1A (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 7 relation 6296991 Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut
US Bike 7 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 8 relation 1770865 Alaska
US Bike 8 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 10 relation 4274011 Washington, Idaho, Michigan (current western terminus in Iron Mountain does not quite reach Wisconsin. Michigan DOT notes it is working with Wisconsin DOT to extend to Wisconsin).
US Bike 10 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 10 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 11 relation 12126554 Maryland, West Virginia, New York
US Bike 11 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 11 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 15 relation 8257568 Georgia, Florida. Both states are 100% complete, though as entered now both benefit from a "double-check review." (Please "sign and date" this (using four ~ characters while editing wiki) when completed, then remove this comment after completing review). USBR 15 in Georgia was OSM's first entered as unidirectional: other routes are bidirectional unless their Relation cell is green. Any new USBRs created in OSM as a super-relation containing two unidirectional routes (per state) should also follow this "Relation cell green" convention in this wiki. This USBR is in both states (all states containing the route), so the Relation cell is green.
US Bike 15 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 15 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 20 relation 13084080 Washington, Minnesota, Michigan. In Minnesota, some "parallel routing" due to current trail construction will need some cleanup (deletion of urban streets as parallel route elements) after the trails are fully constructed.
US Bike 20 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 20 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 21 relation 8852715 Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia.
US Bike 21 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 23 relation 8832289 Tennessee, Kentucky
US Bike 23 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 25 relation 12922795 Ohio. Routing in Cincinnati may be addressed in an ODOT amendment to the route in a subsequent AASHTO round.
US Bike 25 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 30 relation 11527029 North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania
US Bike 30 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 30 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 35 relation 5552019 Indiana, Michigan
US Bike 35 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 35A relation 6062629 Indiana. Discontiguous route in a single relation.
US Bike 35A (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 36 relation 5552101 Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana
US Bike 36 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 36 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 37 relation 3783539 Illinois
US Bike 37 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 40 relation 12916369 Washington
US Bike 40 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 41 relation 6708256 Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 41 as North Star Bicycle Route, although, signage is M1-8 as indicated to the right)
US Bike 41 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 44 relation 12925038 Ohio
US Bike 44 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 45 relation 3365973 Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 45 as Mississippi River Trail)
Mississippi River Trail 10 states 1 river icon.jpg
United States Bicycle Route 45A relation 2918096 Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 45A as Mississippi River Trail)
Mississippi River Trail 10 states 1 river icon.jpg
United States Bicycle Route 50 relation 2532740 District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, California. Segments, including the Great Allegheny Passage (GAP) and the C&O towpath along the Potomac River are unpaved.
US Bike 50 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 50 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 50A relation 2532436 Ohio
US Bike 50A (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 66 relation 8498552 Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, California
US Bike 66 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 66 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 70 relation 5167193 Utah
US Bike 70 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 76 relation 3019665 Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas
US Bike 76 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 76 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
US Bike 76 (non standard).svg
United States Bicycle Route 77 relation 12602792 Utah
US Bike 77 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 79 relation 5167233 Utah
US Bike 79 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 81 relation 12916368 Washington
US Bike 81 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 87 relation 7644264 Alaska, Washington
US Bike 87 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 90 relation 5552209 Florida, Arizona
US Bike 90 (M1-9).svg
US Bike 90 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 90A relation 4264419 Florida
US Bike 90A (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 95 relation 7644263 Alaska, Washington, California (The northern part of California, from Oregon to the south city limit of Daly City).
US Bike 95 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 97 relation 7644262 Alaska, Washington.
US Bike 97 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 108 relation 1770863 Alaska
US Bike 108 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 110 relation 6575317 Idaho
US Bike 110 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 176 relation 6313585 Virginia
US Bike 176 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 201 relation 11642110 Delaware, Maryland
US Bike 201 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 208 relation 1770864 Alaska
US Bike 208 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 210 relation 6575318 Idaho
US Bike 210 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 221 relation 5518310 Georgia
US Bike 221 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 225 relation 12922779 Ohio
US Bike 225 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 230 relation 12925019 Ohio
US Bike 230 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 230 relation 10967108 Wisconsin
US Bike 230 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 235 relation 12925064 Indiana
US Bike 235 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 281 relation 12916367 Washington
US Bike 281 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 310 relation 8284778 Washington
US Bike 310 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 410 relation 6575319 Idaho
US Bike 410 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 421 relation 5518364 Georgia
US Bike 421 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 501 relation 10215566 Maine
US Bike 501 (M1-9).svg
United States Bicycle Route 610 relation 8284844 Washington
US Bike 610 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 621 relation 9049636 Georgia
US Bike 621 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 677 relation 12617174 Utah
US Bike 677 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 679 relation 12713158 Utah
US Bike 679 (M1-9 IA-15).svg
United States Bicycle Route 877 relation 12617650 Utah
US Bike 877 (M1-9 IA-15).svg

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).

Proposed USBR # Relation(s) State(s) Status and notes - often where coordinated activity is taking place that will lead (or already has led) to a state application being placed for a vote on the next AASHTO ballot
USBR 11 New York relation 14585961 NY (done), PA, MD, VA, NC New York has applied for a very minor realignment of USBR 11 in Sodus Point during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route.
USBR 21 Tennessee relation 14582274
Ohio relation 14624534
OH, KY (done), TN, GA (done) Tennessee DOT has applied for this route during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route, completing USBR 21.
Ohio (ODOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route.
USBR 25 Alabama relation 1783206
Mississippi relation 1788483
Tennessee relation 1788484
Kentucky relation 1795812
Ohio (Approved) relation 12922795
Ohio (Proposed) relation 14624416
Michigan No relation yet
AL, MS, TN, KY, OH (done), MI

An Alabama DOT document from 2009 says on page 12 "it is recommended that the U.S. Bike Route 25 in Alabama be the same as the Underground Railroad Bicycle Route." However, Alabama appears not to be further developing this route nor does it have an active project to bring it to AASHTO. This is tagged network=rcn + ref=UGR + cycle_network=US:ACA + ncn=proposed so the first two keys display a solid purple line badged with purple UGR shields, and the last key superimposes a dashed red line (with no red 25 shields). Alabama state bicycle route NS1 is substantially similar to this route, and in fact NS1 and UGR parallel each other in much of the state: from Mobile north to Aliceville, where to follow both UGR and the USBR 25 corridor, Alabama state bicycle route C9 branches northwesterly to Mississippi.

Mississippi's UGR segment is tagged network=rcn + ref=UGR + cycle_network=US:ACA. Noted as the Mississippi relation in this row is ACA's UGR, though as no active project in the state is known of to promote this regional route to USBR 25, no ncn=proposed tag is added.

Tennessee's UGR segment is tagged network=rcn + ref=UGR + cycle_network=US:ACA. Noted as the Tennessee relation in this row is ACA's UGR, though as no active project in the state is known of to promote this regional route to USBR 25, no ncn=proposed tag is added.

Kentucky's DOT identifies a state bicycle route as a "USBR 25 AASHTO Identified Corridor" called "Underground Railroad Bike Tour" (URT), tagged network=rcn + ref=URT + cycle_network=US:KY. This is two discontiguous segments as the route slips into Indiana at Brandenburg, then re-emerges into Kentucky at Milton. No active project in the state is known of to promote this state route to USBR 25, so no ncn=proposed tag is added.

Indiana contains a portion of ACA's UGR route (from Maukport, near Brandenburg, Kentucky to Madison, near Milton, Kentucky), but this neither aligns (well) with the USBR 25 corridor nor is it entered into OSM.

Ohio (ODOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round, fully entered and Approved as a proposed route. During the Autumn, 2022 round, this promotes this row to green. Deliberately excluded are segments in the city limits of Cincinnati (represented by Ohio to Erie Trail / Ohio rcn 1 relations). Eventually, ODOT intends to complete this "Cincinnati Gap" with new trail construction that will fully harmonize USBR 25 (and / with USBR 21).

In Michigan (and Ontario, Canada), ACA's UGR diverges significantly from the USBR 25 corridor. USBR 25 might continue northward through the Lower Peninsula of Michigan to Detroit, Bay City and Mackinaw City, but no state project is known to be extant and no geo data are available.

USBR 30 Ohio relation 14624230 OH

Ohio (ODOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route.

USBR 35 Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee (NTP) relation 3346762
Tennessee (UGR)
relation 1788484
Kentucky (RRT)relation 6580415
MS, TN, KY, IN (done), MI (done)

In Mississippi, Natchez Trace Parkway (NTP) could be emerging/incipient as USBR 35 (and possibly part of 25). This is tagged network=ncn + ref=NTP + cycle_network=US:NPS and is a fully-fledged quasi-national route. Note that in Mississippi there are two distinct NTP relations: one for the route=road, the other (noted here) for the route=bicycle + network=ncn (currently with identical members), though the members of this relation are not only those in Mississippi, but those in Alabama and Tennessee, as well.

Alabama's segment of Natchez Trace Parkway is in OSM (as part of the three-state relation above), however, please note that this diverges significantly from the USBR 35 corridor.

Tennessee's UGR segment is tagged network=rcn + ref=UGR + cycle_network=US:ACA. Note that Tennessee's segments of the network=rcn + ref=NTP relation both diverge from the USBR 35 corridor and are distinct from UGR. As it is much less clear (compared to Mississippi) that either of these Tennessee existing route segments are intended to be promoted to USBR 35, and no active project in the state is known of, neither route (or segments, in the case of NTP) is / are additionally tagged ncn=proposed; neither Tennessee's UGR nor Tennessee's segment of NTP is likely to become USBR 35.

Kentucky's DOT identifies a state bicycle route as a "USBR 35 AASHTO Identified Corridor" called "Ramblin’ River Bike Tour" (RRT), tagged network=rcn + ref=RRT + cycle_network=US:KY from the Mississippi River at Hickman in far western Kentucky to the South Shore at the Ohio River in northeastern Kentucky. No active project in the state is known of to promote this state route to USBR 35, hence there should be no ncn=proposed tag on the relation.

USBR 37 Michigan relation 3391787
Wisconsin No relation yet
IL (done), WI, MI Wisconsin appeared to be waiting for AASHTO approval of USBR 30 before progress on USBR 37 continues in that state. However now (Summer 2020) that USBR 30 is approved, no particular news is known about progress on USBR 37 in Wisconsin.

A route proposal is fully entered into OSM in Michigan (Upper Peninsula) as M 35 from Menominee to Escanaba (continuing a potential USBR 37 in Wisconsin in or near Marinette), boosting this row to green.

USBR 40 Ohio No relation yet NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, IA, SD, WY, MT, ID, WA (done)

In Ohio, ODOT's Access Ohio 2045 transportation plan might propose a route for USBR 40 that follows the Great Ohio Lake-to-River Greenway in eastern Ohio but otherwise follows State Bike Route K, not yet entered into OSM. Hence, this is stalled here, making this row a "red proposed route" until further forward motion from ODOT or OSM discovers and presents a published Route K map available (in which case K should be entered into OSM as a route relation tagged network=rcn).

USBR 41 Minnesota relation 14607562 MN Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. This is "essentially complete" in OSM as a proposed route now (late September, 2022); minor corrections / clarifications might continue to be further specified by MnDOT.
USBR 44 Ohio relation 14624535 OH

Ohio (ODOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route.

USBR 50 Ohio relation 14624932 OH

Ohio (ODOT) has applied for realignments during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. It is fully entered into OSM as a proposed route.

USBR 76 Wyoming relation 1790784 VA (done), KY (done), IL (done), MO (done), KS (done), CO, WY, MT, ID, OR Incipient in Wyoming. The route will follow US 287 from near Jackson to Rawlins, then US 287 Bypass onto Wyoming 76 onto I-80 at Exit 221 to Exit 235 onto SR 130, then SR 230 to the Colorado state line, where it becomes SR 125 in Colorado. There are challenges with traffic and road quality inside Yellowstone National Park. One routing goes through Jackson onto SR 22 into Idaho. What IS known about this route is entered into OSM (this is what is meant if this row is green), but omits routing which is now (2021-Q4) under construction through northwest Wyoming.

There is at least one old-style, unofficial USBR 76 sign in Colorado, along SH 9. [1]

USBR 79 Nevada relation 3318924 NV, UT (done), AZ In 2017-8 Nevada and Utah realigned USBR 50 and 79 corridors; ACA published a newer Corridor Plan / USBRS Progress map. In Nevada, USBR 79 emerged as Nevada State Route 487 from Utah northwest to US Route 50, ~11 miles. However, no further USBR 79 development is known in Nevada.
USBR 80 Arkansas relation 14607447 OK, AR, TN, NC Arkansas DOT (ArDOT) has applied for a route segment from its stateline at Memphis, Tennessee (Big River Crossing) to North Little Rock during AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round. These are seeded in OSM as a proposed route. ArDOT's application can be found here, including valid shapefile data. Complete route data are also available on RideWithGPS for westbound and eastbound directions: you can choose to convert-and-download to many formats (GPX included) by clicking the button with three vertical dots.
USBR 84 Alabama relation 1783198 SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, TX An Alabama DOT document from 2009 says on page 12 "it is recommended that U.S. Bike Route 84 follow the same route as the state bicycle route (EW2)." However, Alabama appears not to be further developing this route nor does it have an active project to bring it to AASHTO. This is tagged network=rcn + ref=EW2 + cycle_network=US:AL + ncn=proposed so the first two keys display a solid purple line badged with purple EW2 shields, and the last key superimposes a dashed red line (with no red 84 shields).
USBR 90 relation 3317166 (super) FL (done), AL, MS, LA, TX, NM, AZ (done), CA These routes were incipient in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.

In Alabama, USBR 90 is fully entered into OSM as it was proposed, but no AASHTO application was made.
In Mississippi, USBR 90 is seeded as SR 53 between I-59 and Poplarville, west to Crossroads via SR 43 and east via Silver Run, Ten Mile, Latimer and Vancleave to Alabama. However, no further specific route data are available. There was an initial glimmer of interest in this route at Mississippi DOT circa 2013 but it seems to have fizzled out. Mississippi demotes this row from green to yellow.
In Louisiana, USBR 90 is fully entered into OSM as it was proposed, but no AASHTO application was made.

USBR 95 California (north) relation 12922709 (south) relation 12882462 CA, OR, WA (done), AK (done)

Caltrans' DRAFT Phase II route in central and southern California, from Daly City S to Mexico. These separate (unidirectional) routes (not yet Caltrans-submitted to AASHTO) are under construction (seeded around Lompoc) S to California's border with Mexico and N to existing USBR 95 (Phase I) in Daly City.

USBR 225 Ohio relation 12922779 OH

During AASHTO's Autumn 2022 round, Ohio (ODOT) requests that USBR 225 be deleted from USBRS as superfluous, as superior infrastructure is newly-built on the parent/parallel route. Upon approval, simply delete this relation.

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 AASHTO's web site). 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 AASHTO's web site) 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

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.