Developing a National Dataset of Bicycle Infrastructure for Canada Using Open Data Sources

Colin Ferster · TRISALYN A. NELSON · Kevin Manaugh · Jeneva Beairsto · Karen Laberee · Meghan Winters

22 citations0/0 files storedEnvironment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Transport and Accessibility Traffic and Road Safety Geographic Information Systems Studies

Abstract

High quality and consistent bicycling infrastructure data are needed to advance research into equity and safety and for planning active transportation. There is no consistent and complete national dataset for bicycling infrastructure in Canada. Our goal is to develop a national bicycling infrastructure dataset by 1) classifying OpenStreetMap (OSM) using the Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety Classification System (Can-BICS) as consistent criteria and categorization for comfort class and infrastructure type; 2) performing a site-specific accuracy assessment by comparing the classification with more than 2,000 reference points from a stratified random sample in 15 cities; and 3) presenting summary results from the national dataset. Based on reference data collected in 15 test cities, the classification had an estimated accuracy of 76 ± 3% for presence or absence of infrastructure, 71 ± 4% for comfort class, and 69 ± 4 % (by length) for infrastructure type. High comfort infrastructure was slightly underestimated (since bike paths were sometimes confused with multi-use paths) and low comfort infrastructure was slightly overestimated. Nationally, we identified 22,992 km of bicycling infrastructure meeting Can-BICS standards and 48,953 km of non-conforming infrastructure. Multi-use paths are the most common infrastructure type by length (16.6%), followed by painted bike lanes (11.0%), and then high comfort infrastructure (cycle tracks, local street bikeways, and bike paths) (4.3%). There was a wider range in access to bicycling infrastructure in small cities than in medium and large cities. To reduce repeated effort assembling data and increase reproducible active transportation research, we encourage contribution to OSM.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Seeking Spatial Justice 2011Researching Volunteered Geographic Information: Spatial Data, Geographic Research, and New Social Practice 2011Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes 2017Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future 2014Data-driven geography 2012Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study 2017osmdata 2012Safe Cycling: How Do Risk Perceptions Compare With Observed Risk?

Cited by

2024Who has access to cycling infrastructure in Canada? A social equity analysis 2024Cycling towards complete communities: Estimating access to destinations via low traffic stress cycling 2025Cycling and GHG Emissions: How Infrastructure Makes All the Difference 2024How Good Is Open Bicycle Network Data? A Countrywide Case Study of Denmark 2024What type of person is at different stages of change for cycling? A case study of Montreal

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.