On 2019-07-11 17:27, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question
about:
stevea writes:
As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually
classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are
sponsored at a state-level: these are properly tagged rcn (regional
generally means "state-level" in the USA). I don't know this for sure
(Minh?) but I might imagine that the C Canal Trail over and above
the USBR 50 relation might be properly tagged rcn instead of lcn.
Such decisions are best determined with more-local consensus by
Contributors who are familiar with the local / state statutes which
define the route. The Bicycle_Networks wiki describe (MUTCD-standard)
signage for NUMBERED routes which disambiguate the network-level tag
that should be used. For routes which happen to be signed
on-the-ground as non-governmental (non-MUTCD-standard signage), please
consider these on a case-by-case basis, starting (as Richard did) at
the local (lcn) level. If network=rcn is actually a better value,
this is likely to emerge with strong consensus at a more-local (state)
level within OSM.
The notion of state sponsorship is interesting, and there is the aspect
of a state bicycle route number, akin to a state numbered highway. I
can certainly see that being rcn. Then there is the aspect that in MA,
most things called "rail trails" end up getting built with state funds,
and built to state construction standards, both avoiding the towns
having to say and making the resulting trail much more costly (but nicer
in some ways). These trails tend to have names, like "Nashua River Rail
Trail", "Assabet River Rail Trail", "Bruce Freeman Rail Trail", but they
don't have a "MA Bicycle 29" designation, or if so nobody knows that.
Most of them go over fairly short distances; the Nashua River one is
about 12 miles and is in the towns of Ayer, Groton, Pepperell, MA and a
bit in Nashua, NH. To me, that feels local in scope rather than
statewide, so I'd want to see it as lcn. The fact that it was funded
with state rather than local money doesn't seem important. (Actually,
state money pays for local roads in complicated scheme.)
Now, if the Central Mass Rail Trail were somehow complete in a Cambridge
to Northhampton sort of way, or even half of that, it's obviously rcn,
regardless of who organizes it.
This gets fuzzy. Perhaps, in a US-centric northest-centric way, it
feels like rcn is 100 km.
I'm not sure this ended up being useful. I think I more or less agree
with where I think you ended up, saying that other than federal and
state numbered routes, all routes are lcn, unless there is really clear
local consensus that they are very important and of state-level scope,
in which case they can be promoted to rcn.
I think this speaks to the utility of the cycle_network [1] and operator
tags. The network=lcn/rcn/ncn/icn tagging scheme may've sufficed in the
early days in the UK, but increasingly more nuance is needed on both
sides of the pond.
As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both network
and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form part of a
coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite). A given route's
actual length, connectivity, build quality, or ownership on its own is
perhaps less important, but consistent signage or ownership is how an
organization might establish a set of routes as a network.
Long ago, Ohio's transportation department set up a state system of
lettered bicycle routes along rural roads, which no practically no one
knows about. But local bike advocacy groups also coordinated on a system
of numbered routes over state- and county-maintained trails.
Over time, Dayton-area counties took up the task of signposting the
unofficial numeric routes with the same kind of signage as the official
statewide system. Then adjacent counties up and down the state followed
suit, to the point that the numbered routes are the state system for all
intents and purposes. A few years ago, all the routes in the state were
renumbered, something that has happened many times to state road route
networks. [2] But IIRC it was carried out by trail managers and
coordinated by regional planning commissions rather than the state.
The numeric network includes some spur routes that are shorter than many
city-maintained local routes but bear state route signage, such as route
3E. [3] The alphabetic and numeric routes alike are tagged with the same
cycle_network=US:OH, though the operator tag can be used to distinguish
if necessary. It's all a bit chaotic, but hey, that's reality.
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Highway_renumbering_in_the_United_States
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128492582
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
___
Talk-us mailing list
