ebmgh.com

Recently, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, or MTC,  re-launched the Bike Mapper application on 511.org. It was down for a while as they were revamping the site. While the old version of the site failed to impress, the new version is also somewhat of a disappointment. The launch was not accompanied by much publicity. Below are the comments that I submitted to the agency. Hopefully they’ll follow up on some of them.

Comments on the general bike mapper (http://bicycling.511.org/bikemapper.htm)

1. Why only allow topographic map view? (Please include Satellite, Map, street view, traffic, etc.)

2. Bike routes polylines should either be narrower or have some transparency, so that the user can read street names underneath)

3. When using the search feature, should allow the user to find more than one location and place more than a single map marker.

4. Would be nice to be able to save favorite locations.

5. Additional information would be of great use to cyclists in planning routes: e.g. route attributes such as street name, lane width, presence of shoulder, speed limit, daily average vehicle counts, known road hazards (EBBC & SFBC both have such databases).

6. There is no indication of who to contact for more information, and only the small suggestions button at the side for giving feedback or offering suggestions. There is a huge trove of knowledge with the cyclists and commuters who ride these routes every day. I would suggest tapping into this “wisdom of the crowd” to improve the map. This is also a way of leveraging limited funds.

7. I see the symbol SM or TM after BikeMapper in several locations. Has MTC or BAAQMD actually registered a trademark or service mark with the US Patent and Trademark Office? I was under the impression that under US law, the information generated and published by government agencies is in the public domain, and that government is not eligible to hold trademarks.

Comments on the Route Builder Tool (http://mtcgis.mtc.ca.gov/bikemapper/default_tripPlanner.htm)

Great! Thank you! Congratulations!  I am so excited to finally see this. There is a lot of good functionality built into this, and some good route data. However, I see this as more of a “proof of concept” at this point, and not something that really helps cyclists. Here are my specific comments:

1. The routes that it chooses are poor, and so not very useful.

• It routes me onto busy streets.
• It routes me over steep hills.
• It should provide turn-by-turn text directions, such as “Left on 34th Street, 0.2 miles”

2. Please consider making the map markers “draggable”, so that the user can change their start or end point. This functionality is built into the Google Maps API.

3. Please consider allowing the user to enter more than two points. I.e. Allow a multi-point itinerary.

4. Once you have entered a start or end point, clicking “Place Route Markers” deletes both of them, when maybe you want to keep one. Consider changing this so the user can remove one or the other, and does not have to start over from scratch.

5. After searching for a location, a marker is placed on the map, but then the user has to click again to add a start or end point for the route. The map should allow the user to convert the search result marker into the route start point or end point.

6. The finished route polyline covers up the bike route overlay, so you can’t tell what type of route you’re on (e.g. bike lane, path, on-street).

7. Many cyclists prefer taking a slightly longer route if it is on roads with less traffic. You should offer that option. Additional research has shown that many cyclists prefer to avoid busy streets due to health concerns over air quality (see for example, http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/default.htm).

8. There has been no publicity or outreach that I have seen. Consider following Google’s model “release and iterate” – do a public release of the beta, which you have done, and then solicit opinions and feedback. Again, the cycling public is a treasure trove of knowledge about these routes. You should tap into that knowledge to leverage limited agency staffing and funding.

9. Question: Does MTC have plans to make use of data from SFCTA’s recently-announced CycleTracks program (http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/666/375) to improve the bike route data? Are there any plans to expand this to the 9-county area?

I am happy to follow up with you to clarify or test out the next beta version. You’re off to a good start, and there are many of us who would like to see more!