"Bike There", Bike Aware
There’s a petition making it way about the net, mostly on bike relates sites and mailing lists, calling for Google to add a cycling-specific “Bike There” feature to Maps.
We would like a ‘Bike There’ feature added to Google Maps - to go with the current ‘Drive There’ and ‘Take Public Transit’ options.
The feature would take into account actual bicycle lanes from the locality being mapped, and it would automatically plan a route for a bicyclist, possibly even providing the cyclist options for either the most direct route, or the most bicycle-friendly (safest) route. The Google Maps-based third party site, byCycle.org (http://byCycle.org/), provides these features for two metro areas - Portland, Oregon and Madison, Wisconsin, and there are countless other mapping initiatives around the world aimed at accomplishing the same goal. We hope that Google will consider building this feature into the core Google Maps service.
Though I signed the petition, I’m not so certain of its success. It’s not that I feel as though Google would be unwilling to provide such a service, I just worry about some problems that Google won’t be able to just algorithm away using their immense internet powers. Or maybe they can?
Most cycling-specific map data available doesn’t conform to any sort of GIS standard, the way the road data on Google Maps does, because there is no standardized format for bike routes. To make matters worse, there exists a variety of ways to integrate cars and bikes in a road system, with options ranging from barrier-separated bike lanes to bicycle boulevards and mixed-use paths. These different amenities are offered and applied in many different ways by different local governments. In addition, when bike routes are constructed, the mapping data for them is usually owned by the local government which may charge a high fee for access to it.
The Practical Pedal blog has what I consider a very reasonable take on the situation. Here’s a quote from the post:
Don’t get me wrong. I love bike paths, but I think of them as recreational infrastructure. If I want to get to the store, I’m riding practically, and I won’t go out of my way to get there on a bike path. I will, however, go out of my way to avoid roads that will cause me to create long lines of backed-up automobile traffic behind me.
So I suggest that in our desire to have practical cycling tools, we keep the specification for such a tool simple and useful (like a bike), so that it has a chance of being implemented.
Google has a habit of listening to vocal users, and their beta Transit service indicates their partiality to alternative means of transportation. One way we can make it easier for Google to integrate bike routes, is to let our local and regional government know that we want them to make bike route data available in an open and affordable format.
Asking for the adoption of a standardized delineation of bicycle services also encourages cooperation between neighboring districts. Not only does this increase the likeliehood of seeing things like a “Bike There” feature, but it send a clear message to local and national governments that bikes are a valid and valued form of transportation.
In related news, Jonathan Maus of BikePortland.org wrote recently of Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s introduction of the “National Bike Bill”. (Check his full coverage here)
In an issue paper distributed by the League [of American Bicyclists] in advance of the [National Bike] Summit they write that the resolution, “calls on the United States Congress to adopt a national bicycling strategy to fully realize the incredible benefits of getting more people bicycling, more safely, more often,” and it urges lawmakers to ensure “wise use of the considerable Federal investment in transportation infrastructure, and that expanded funding for bicycling and walking programs is desirable and important.”
You can read the full “National Bike Bill” (aka House Congressional Resolution 305) here, and find and contact your federal, state, and local officials here.
Telling Google that bikes matter to you is good, but telling your representatives is better.