• Technical and political issues limit OSM’s ability to represent common cycling routes. • Gaps can be seen as infractions or as a tool to improve cycling mobility. • Many gaps emerge from the disconnection between the various stakeholder groups. • Gaps can bridge stakeholders, promote dialogue and a problem-solving mindset. • Collaboration between stakeholders is required for achieving a balanced solution. OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a relevant technology for many cycling applications and services, but its value depends on its ability to accurately represent routes commonly used by cyclists. This is often not the case in starter cycling cities, where the cycling infrastructure and culture remain limited. In such cities, there are significant and recurrent gaps between the routes used by cyclists and the official bicycle road network represented in OSM. These gaps arise because, in those cities, cyclists use many unconventional paths and because of ambiguities in OSM representation practices. This study aims to examine how key stakeholders in cycling mobility, namely cyclists, OSM mappers and local authorities, perceive the root causes behind these gaps and the possible ways in which they can be addressed. The research methods involve interviews and focus groups with those stakeholders to discuss six specific cases of representation gaps. The results show substantial technical challenges in the representation of informal cycling routes and divergent interpretations of the causes and potential solutions. There is also a major disconnection between stakeholder groups, which reinforces ambiguity and fails to promote convergence within and between communities. Overall, the role of OSM as an enabling technology for cycling information systems is significantly challenged by these technical and institutional issues, as they may limit its ability to provide complete and accurate representations of commonly used cycling routes. In starter cycling cities, these challenges are exacerbated by the contrasting views that different stakeholder groups hold about the same representation problems and their possible solutions.
Carvalho et al. (Fri,) studied this question.