OSM Can-BICS (English)

Mapping bicycle facilities across Canada.

Background

Cycling is growing across Canada. This map by The Centre for Active Transportation (TCAT) shows that the  rates of cycling to work as the primary mode of transportation have increased from 2016 to 2020 in both large and small communities. 

However, too many Canadians are injured and killed while cycling and traffic danger  remains a key deterrent for people taking up or continuing to cycle .

To make cycling safer and more convenient, ensure a more equitable distribution of access to cycling facilities, and encourage more people to start riding, many communities are building cycling facilities. However,  not all bicycle facilities are equal !

Some infrastructure is comfortable and safe for people of all-ages-and-abilities (AAA).

Other infrastructure is uncomfortable and unsafe.

Evidence strongly supports that  where all-ages-and-abilities bicycle infrastructure is common, there are higher rates of cycling and other forms of active transportation . The type and quality of bicycle infrastructure is important; for example, infrastructure that is away from traffic noise, with beautiful scenery, and physically separated from traffic is known to  motivate riding . These types of infrastructure may also increase diversity among people who ride bikes, for example, some bicycle infrastructure may help  reduce the gender gap . The  Canadian Public Health Officer’s 2017 Report  called for greater attention to the built environment to understand how community design can support healthy living. Further exploring of these topics depends on high-quality data about bicycle infrastructure in Canada.

However, data on bicycle infrastructure nationally are limited. To further advance knowledge around how supportive cities area for cycling, find change over time, and inform future infrastructure projects in a Canadian context, we need a detailed and meaningful map.

Open data

 Open data  on bicycle infrastructure is provided by many cities and is commonly used for active transportation research. However, there are challenges in working with open data:

  • It is time-consuming to assemble open data from multiple cities across regional or national extents.
  • Open data are not available for all cities.
  • In cities where there are data, the data quality is variable in terms of their completeness and timeliness.
  • In particular, inconsistent terminology is used in different cities. Winters et al. (2020) found 269 unique terms describing bicycle facilities from 45 Canadian municipalities.
  • Key studies have not been replicated in different settings to find change over time.

Can-BICS

 The Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety Classification  (Can-BICS) provides a framework and common nomenclature to support national surveillance. Can-BICS is based on transportation engineering design guides and health research on cycling safety and preference. Can-BICS is a classification system of five bicycling infrastructure types assigned to three categories: high, medium, and low comfort, based on the facility’s contribution to user safety and comfort while bicycling. Can-BICS was developed by researchers at Simon Fraser University and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

OpenStreetMap

 OpenStreetMap  (OSM) is a volunteered map of the world. Contributions are wide and diverse, from  companies that deliver goods or online services , to  skilled and dedicated hobbyists. 

OSM holds promise for improving Canada's bicycle facilities map. OSM is:

OSM Can-BICS

We applied the Can-BICS classification to OSM data to create an up-to-date and extensive map of bicycle facilities across Canada using nomenclature that reflects safety and comfort priorities. We completed ground-truthing of the data using aerial and ground-level imagery at over 2,168 locations in 15 test cities.

Test cities

We completed a preliminary classification and accuracy assessment in 15 test cities.

Large cities (population > 500,000)

Medium cities (population > 50,000 to ≤ 500,000)

Small cities (population ≤ 50,000)

Local knowledge can help improve the map.  Record any issues using this form  or by  editing OSM .

Map Categories

Descriptions from Winters et al. 2020 with additional OSM classification details.

I. High comfort bikeways

Low-stress routes comfortable for most people, including those of all ages and abilities, with a record for best safety.

Cycle track

A roadway lane exclusively for cyclists and physically separated from both motor vehicles and the sidewalk. Separation from motor vehicle traffic must include a vertical barrier (e.g. a raised median, bollards, box planters or trees and landscaping). Separation from the sidewalk may include street furniture, a curb or landscaped buffer. The facility may be at the level of the roadway or the sidewalk or between the two.

In OSM, we identified cycle tracks using the OSM tag: cycleway=track OR (OSM tag: highway=cycleway AND OSM tag: foot=no).

Local street bikeway

A local street (no centre line or lanes) where cyclists share the roadway with motor vehicles. Traffic-calming elements limit motor vehicle speeds and volumes and inhibit their through travel. Bicycle priority measures facilitate cyclists’ safe crossing of streets and limit stops and delays. The facility includes measures to improve cyclist comfort: smooth surfaces; street lighting; wayfinding signage and pavement markings; and consistent paving material and colour.

Identifying local street bikeways on OSM depends on multiple tags and geographic context.

Local street bikeways must meet all of the following conditions:

  • speed limit < 50 km / hour AND
  • not a major road (two lanes or less) AND
  • paved surface AND
  • OSM tag: bicycle=designated OR part of a bicycle route.

In addition to the previous tags, local street bikeways must meet at least one of the following conditions:

  • OSM tag: traffic_calming=yes OR
  • OSM tag: max_speed ≤ 30 km/h OR
  • roundabouts within 750 m on the same route OR
  • traffic diversion within 750 m on the same route (i.e. a dead end where a cycle track or bike path provides continuity for bikes OR direction restrictions that do not apply to cyclists).

Bike path

An off-road paved path exclusively for cyclists located along independent corridors away from a road. May be one-way or two-way with a centre line. Often adjacent to a walking path and separated by a painted line, curb or landscaped buffer.

We identified bike paths on OSM by searching for off road paths that are tagged as bike only OR have osm tag: [segregated=yes].

II. Medium Comfort Bikeways

Low- or medium-stress routes comfortable for some people, but whose safety requires careful design.

Multi-use path

A two-way paved path shared by cyclists, pedestrians and other users (e.g. skateboarders and rollerbladers). May be located along independent corridors away from a road or next to a roadway and physically segregated from motor vehicles (replacing a sidewalk).

We identified multi-use paths on OSM by identifying paths where both foot and bicycle traffic are indicated.

An important condition for the accessibility of multi-use paths is that the surface is paved. In rural areas, unpaved hiking and mountain biking trails are common. Where surface tags are incomplete, we searched for natural areas polygons. Where paths are located within treed areas, we assumed that the surface is unpaved, unless otherwise indicated.

III. Low Comfort Bikeways

High-stress routes comfortable for few people, with little or no additional safety, compared to no bicycle facility.

Painted bike lane

A painted lane along a busy roadway that is designated by bicycle and diamond pavement markings and signs as exclusively for cyclists. The lane is positioned between a vehicle travel lane and the curb. It may be buffered using diagonal or chevron hatching or unbuffered. Includes both advisory bike lanes (marked by broken lane lines) on the edge of roadways too narrow to provide exclusive cycling and driving spaces and bicycle accessible paved shoulders (indicated by an edge line and bike route signs or stencil markings) on roads without a curb.

We identified painted bike lanes on OSM using the OSM tag: cycleway=lane.

Non-conforming

Non-conforming bicycle facilities do not meet minimum Can-BICS standards.

We included non-conforming categories for completeness and connectivity. We did not check accuracy for these categories, they are presented based on the evidence provided by OSM.

Non-conforming - trail

These are multi-use trails with unpaved surfaces. Unpaved surfaces are an accessibility barrier for many people, so the distinction is important. Hiking and mountain bike trails are common in rural areas across Canada. These trails can provide critical connectivity (e.g., desire lines) and support recreational trips.

Non-conforming - major road

Shared lanes on major roads provide connectivity, but they do not contribute to safety or encourage cycling for most people. Signed routes and shared lanes on major roads without measures to limit traffic volumes or speeds are common across Canada.

Non-conforming - other

Many places are tagged with the unofficial designation of OSM tag: bicycle=yes. While not meeting the other criteria (such as an official designation), they may be great places to ride.

Data Quality

We evaluated data quality in 15 test cities (five large cities, with population > 500,000; five mid-sized cities with population > 50,000 and ≤ 500,000; and five small cities with population ≤ 50,000). We considered all street and trail segments mapped as bicycle facilities in open data or OSM. We collected a stratified random sample of 2,168 points. We interpreted ground-level imagery from  Google Street View , aerial imagery from  Google Maps , and other corroborating data where necessary (e.g. PDF maps from the city and newspaper articles). When we compared OSM to what was on the ground, the estimated accuracy for presence or absence was 76 ± 3%, 71 ± 4% for comfort class (i.e., high, medium, and low comfort), and 69 ± 4% for infrastructure type. The confidence intervals for accuracy assessment overlapped between OSM Can-BICS and Can-BICS classified from open data.

Open data coded to Can-BICS categories (left side) compared with OSM Can-BICS (right side). Pan the map to view the other test cities.

Known issues

This dataset is in the development phase. Accurate classifications depend on both the classification algorithms and the underlying data quality. We encourage interested people to become active OSM editors.  LearnOSM  is a great resource.

Bike paths are under-represented since there is no way to explicitly tag them on OSM. They are often misclassified as cycle tracks or multi-use paths. They compose a very small proportion of total facilities (4% by length). We use a geometric operation to improve the distinction.

Local street bikeways are under-represented. Distinguishing local street bikeways with meaningful traffic calming and diversion from signed routes that offer little to support cyclist safety is a challenge. We continue to develop and refine geometric operations to identify traffic calming and diversionary elements on local streets.

Painted bike lanes are slightly over-represented, since some mapped painted bike lanes do not meet Can-BICS standards in ground-level imagery (for example, a highway shoulder covered with gravel or without bicycle stencil pavement markings or ‘bicycle route’ signage).

The non-conforming category is slightly under-represented. Better differentiation of the above categories will help.

Suggestions for improving OSM bicycle facility data in Canada

  1. Include surface tags to distinguish multi-use paths from multi-use trails. This is critical for accessibility, including for people with electric pedal-assisted bikes and wheelchairs.
  2. Include tags for separation between pedestrians and bikes (segregated:yes). This makes the difference between a medium-comfort multi-use path and a high-comfort bike path or cycle track.
  3. Map meaningful traffic calming features on local street bikeways using traffic_calming:yes. Consider adding speed limits, and the number of lanes to help people make informed choices about where to ride. These features make the difference between signed routes or shared lanes that only provide nominal levels of comfort and safety compared to high comfort routes that can be comfortable and safe for people of all ages and abilities.

Next steps

We are continuing to improve OSM Can-BICS. We classified data across the country and are developing metrics for access to bicycle facilities which we will post to  CANUE . Please  use OSM Can-BICS  in your project, and  get involved with OSM !