United States Bicycle Route System
|Part of United States mapping project.|
Mapping the United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS), now at version 2.2.9 in OSM (incorporating Autumn 2022 AASHTO approvals and nearly all Spring 2023 AASHTO applications from DOTs, see next section). "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 18,953 miles (~30503 km) have been established in 34 states including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, 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 (>80000 km) of routes as USA's officially-numbered national cycling network. EuroVelo, Earth's current "big dog" wide-area cycling network, 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!
|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:
|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 (87.5%) 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. As of 2022 USBRS' "trail" subtotal was 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 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 acronymic, not numeric (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. Gigantic thanks to Kerry Irons of Adventure Cycling Association, without whom OSM would not have the System we do today.
Here are current approved USBRs in OSM:
|Route||Relation||State(s) and notes||Shield(s)|
|United States Bicycle Route 1||3022887 3022887||Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (Phase I and II segments), Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida.|
|United States Bicycle Route 1A||1770834 1770834||Maine|
|United States Bicycle Route 7||6296991 6296991||Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut. A fully completed route in the System. Co-branded as / identical to "Western New England Greenway," signage is M1-8 as indicated to the right.|
|United States Bicycle Route 8||1770865 1770865||Alaska|
|United States Bicycle Route 10||4274011 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).|
|United States Bicycle Route 11||12126554 12126554||Maryland, West Virginia, New York|
|United States Bicycle Route 15||8257568 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.|
|United States Bicycle Route 20||13084080 13084080||Washington, Minnesota, Michigan.|
|United States Bicycle Route 21||8852715 8852715||Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia. A fully completed route in the System.|
|United States Bicycle Route 23||8832289 8832289||Tennessee, Kentucky|
|United States Bicycle Route 25||12922795 12922795||Ohio. Routing in Cincinnati may be addressed in an ODOT amendment to the route in a subsequent AASHTO round.|
|United States Bicycle Route 30||11527029 11527029||North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania|
|United States Bicycle Route 35||5552019 5552019||Indiana, Michigan|
|United States Bicycle Route 35A||6062629 6062629||Indiana. Discontiguous route in a single relation.|
|United States Bicycle Route 36||5552101 5552101||Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana|
|United States Bicycle Route 37||3783539 3783539||Illinois|
|United States Bicycle Route 40||12916369 12916369||Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 41||6708256 6708256||Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 41 as North Star Bicycle Route, although, signage is M1-8 as indicated to the right)|
|United States Bicycle Route 44||12925038 12925038||Ohio|
|United States Bicycle Route 45||3365973 3365973||Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 45 as Mississippi River Trail)|
|United States Bicycle Route 45A||2918096 2918096||Minnesota (Minnesota co-brands USBR 45A as Mississippi River Trail). Signage may be "MRT" plus an "ALT" or "ALTERNATIVE" plaque.|
|United States Bicycle Route 50||2532740 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.|
|United States Bicycle Route 50A||2532436 2532436||Ohio|
|United States Bicycle Route 66||8498552 8498552||Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, California|
|United States Bicycle Route 70||5167193 5167193||Utah|
|United States Bicycle Route 76||3019665 3019665||Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas|
|United States Bicycle Route 77||12602792 12602792||Utah|
|United States Bicycle Route 79||5167233 5167233||Utah|
|United States Bicycle Route 80||14607447 14607447||Arkansas|
|United States Bicycle Route 81||12916368 12916368||Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 87||7644264 7644264||Alaska, Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 90||5552209 5552209||Florida, Arizona|
|United States Bicycle Route 90A||4264419 4264419||Florida|
|United States Bicycle Route 95||7644263 7644263||Alaska, Washington, California (The northern part of California, from Oregon to the south city limit of Daly City).|
|United States Bicycle Route 97||7644262 7644262||Alaska, Washington.|
|United States Bicycle Route 108||1770863 1770863||Alaska|
|United States Bicycle Route 110||6575317 6575317||Idaho|
|United States Bicycle Route 176||6313585 6313585||Virginia|
|United States Bicycle Route 201||11642110 11642110||Delaware, Maryland|
|United States Bicycle Route 208||1770864 1770864||Alaska|
|United States Bicycle Route 210||6575318 6575318||Idaho|
|United States Bicycle Route 221||5518310 5518310||Georgia|
|United States Bicycle Route 230||12925019 12925019||Ohio|
|United States Bicycle Route 230||10967108 10967108||Wisconsin|
|United States Bicycle Route 235||12925064 12925064||Indiana|
|United States Bicycle Route 281||12916367 12916367||Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 310||8284778 8284778||Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 410||6575319 6575319||Idaho|
|United States Bicycle Route 421||5518364 5518364||Georgia|
|United States Bicycle Route 501||10215566 10215566||Maine|
|United States Bicycle Route 610||8284844 8284844||Washington|
|United States Bicycle Route 621||9049636 9049636||Georgia|
|United States Bicycle Route 677||12617174 12617174||Utah|
|United States Bicycle Route 679||12713158 12713158||Utah|
|United States Bicycle Route 877||12617650 12617650||Utah|
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).
For the Spring 2023 round, there are intended to be substantial changes to routes in both Alaska and in a future AASHTO Round, Washington state. Rather than a complex series of table entries for these, it is easier to describe them with text, done here. Neither Alaska nor Washington will be adding new routes (though, additional ferry segments are new route proposals to the three "major" Alaska routes, now entered into OSM). Additionally, Alaska proposes to renumber three routes, including fully deprecating USBR 8 in Alaska, which would get renumbered to USBR 87. Similarly, Alaska proposes to renumber USBR 108 to USBR 397 and USBR 208 to USBR 987. In a separate, "future application cycle" by Washington state DOT, WSDOT intends to harmonize existing routing with USBRs 87, 95 and 97 so their northern termini are the Bellingham Fairhaven Cruise Terminal (Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry Terminal). Remaining segments of these three routes (Bellingham northerly) that now extend to Canada at Blaine, Sumas and serve Lynden and Douglas, British Columbia will be renumbered as spur USBRs 197, 187 and 195 (respectively). WSDOT says "these routes will be adjusted such that they branch off of USBR 87, 95, and 97 at a logical location, to be determined. WSDOT intends to apply to make any needed route modifications and to establish the spur routes" to the Canadian border. Finally, Homer - Seward - Anchorage is a future construction gap in USBR 97 Alaska DOT&PF says (2023-Q2) extends "at a later stage in a coming application, due to current projects taking place."
|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||Pennsylvania 15728077 15728077||NY (done), PA, MD (done), WV (done), VA, NC||
PennDOT has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round for USBR 11, connecting USBR 11 in New York to USBR 11 in Maryland. The proposed route is fully entered into OSM.
|USBR 20||Minnesota 15749106 15749106||WA (done), ID, MT, ND, MN, MI (done)||
MnDOT has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round to realign minor portions of USBR 20, so that new cycleway infrastructure may be "absorbed into" the existing route (replacing it) in several places, as well as extending USBR 20 from St. Cloud to the Wisconsin border. The proposed route is fully entered into OSM.
|USBR 21||Kentucky 15754748 15754748||KY||
Kentucky DOT has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round for four realignments of USBR 21. The proposed route realignment is fully entered into OSM.
|USBR 25||Alabama 1783206 1783206
Mississippi 1788483 1788483
Tennessee 1788484 1788484
Kentucky 1795812 1795812
Ohio 12922795 12922795
Michigan No relation yet
|AL, MS, TN, KY, OH (perhaps more development in future AASHTO rounds), 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.
In Ohio, deliberately excluded are segments in the city limits of Cincinnati (represented by Ohio to Erie Trail / Ohio rcn 1 relations). 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 35||Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee (NTP) 3346762 3346762
Kentucky (RRT)6580415 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 3391787 3391787
Wisconsin No relation yet
Indiana 15754830 15754830
|IL (done), WI, MI, IN||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), which would boost this row to green were it not for pending Indiana 37 still being incomplete in OSM (in progress).
Indiana may have an application before AASHTO during its Spring (or Autumn?) 2023 round for USBR 37 in that state. A relation is "rough drafted" into OSM. Route data are here and here, where an "Export to GPX" (track, not route) is recommended. ~98% - 99% done, minor gaps remain due to lack of known infrastructure available in imagery, new roundabout construction and relevant parallel bicycle infrastructure (and crossings), some one-way segments might not have proper forward or backward role tags set in places and near one bridge, there are some highway=steps which appear to be proposed, unless other level-change infrastructure ("spiral ramps") are more correctly / coherently entered. (Stairs/steps on bicycle routes, especially national-scale, are unusual and/or incorrect). USBR 37's "only rough draft" (yet active draft) status demotes this row to yellow. More news may be expected from INDOT into Summer and Autumn of 2023.
|USBR 40||Ohio No relation yet||NY, NJ, PA, OH (perhaps more development in future AASHTO rounds), 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 45, USBR 45A||Minnesota 45 15754665 15754665 Minnesota 45A 15754250 15754250||MN||
Minnesota has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round for realignments on USBRs 45 and 45A. Both relations are entered into OSM, believed fully and mostly or completely correctly.
|USBR 76||Wyoming 1790784 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. 
|USBR 79||Nevada 3318924 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 84||Alabama 1783198 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||3317166 3317166 (super)||FL (done), AL, MS, LA, TX, NM, AZ (done), CA||These routes were incipient in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana in the early-twenty-teens.|
In Alabama, USBR 90 is fully entered into OSM as it was proposed, but no AASHTO application was made.
|USBR 95||California (north) 12922709 12922709 (south) 12882462 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 and N San Diego County) S to California's border with Mexico and N to existing USBR 95 (Phase I) in Daly City.
|USBR 121||Tennessee 15661076 15661076||TN||
Tennessee DOT has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round for USBRS 121, connecting USBR 21 in Chattanooga westerly to USBR 23 in Caney Spring. The route is fully entered into OSM.
|USBR 610||Idaho 15754755 15754755||ID||
ITD has an application before AASHTO during its Spring 2023 round for USBR 610, serving Hope and East Hope. The route is fully entered into OSM.
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 a web site with data populated by AASHTO). 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 a web site with data populated by AASHTO) 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.
- Wikidata's WikiProject U.S. Roads worklist of U.S. Bicycle Route items
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.