Re: [Talk-us] AOL Patch and OpenStreetMap

[Bryce Nesbitt]

The El Cerrito (CA) patch seems to be a mix of MapQuest and Google Maps.
 Google for the
"did you smell the fire, mark your location" type of article.  MapQuest for
the business listings.

I was unable to locate OSM at all.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Volker Schmidt]

Hi,

with Kerry' clarification about numbering and the use of state=proposed we
would arrive in the US at the same approach that we have pragmatically
applied in Italy to the future national cycle routes, which are numbered
and being progressively defined by FIAB (the Italian Friends of the Bicycle
Association), which in Italy acts also as representative of the European
Cyclists Federation and in that role also defines the Italian Eurovelo
routes. The proposed routes are being inserted when a detailed route
proposal exists. When signposting takes place we insert the signposted,
final routes as new relations, replacing the earlier proposed routes.
Usually this involves detail changes, but normally no gross route changes
and the numbering remains.
If I am not mistaken, the approaches in the US and in Italy are similar, as
no central government body is responsible for the assignment of route
numbering (differently, I believe, from the UK) and cyclists' associations
take on the role of defining routes and supervising the implementation.

The problem of disappearing signs exists also in Italy, even if the cycle
route does not have such a famous reference as Route 66.

Volker
FIAB
Padova Italy

On 6 June 2013 00:40,  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Richard Fairhurst)
>2.  Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Brad Neuhauser)
>3. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>4. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Frederik Ramm)
>5. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Paul Johnson)
>6. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Martin Koppenh?fer)
>7. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (KerryIrons)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 05:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Richard Fairhurst 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
> Message-ID: <1370434883115-5764067.p...@n5.nabble.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Kerry Irons wrote:
> > Nathan,
> > [...]
> > Please advise when you will remove these tags.
>
> "Nathan" (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on
> account of his "inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing
> project": http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347
>
> It'll therefore fall to the rest of the US community to fix this (assuming
> the community agrees!).
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-US-Bicycle-Route-tags-tp5764061p5764067.html
> Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:24:44 -0500
> From: Brad Neuhauser 
> To: KerryIrons 
> Cc: Nathan Edgars II , "talk-us@openstreetmap.org"
> 
> Subject: [Talk-us]  Removing US Bicycle Route tags
> Message-ID:
>  pv172pwntuv_js_awycuh...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kerry,
>
> NE2 has been indefinitely banned (see
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html ) so
> if you want these changed, have at it.
>
> Cheers, Brad
>
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, KerryIrons wrote:
>
> > Nathan,
> >
> > 3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags
> in
> > the Midwest.  The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle
> Routes
> > should be tagged in OSM.
> >
> > Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not been
> > approved by AASHTO it is incorrect to have them tagged in OpenStreetMaps.
> > There are proposed routes for 35 and 50 in Indiana and part of 50 in Ohio
> > but since those routes have not been approved by AASHTO the routes are
> > subject to change during the implementation process.  There are no
> specific
> > route proposals for 21, 25, 80, and 84.  Only 20 and 35 in Michigan have
> > been approved.
> >
> > Please advise when you

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

What's the source for this system?  Is it widely adopted?


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM, stevea  wrote:

> I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my previous
> post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY EXISTING (Class I, II
> and III) bicycle infrastructure.  All of the "proposed routes" are actual
> bicycle infrastructure "out there today."  What is being proposed is simply
> the set of numbers to be used to identify the routes (in a one-to-one
> correspondence with existing bicycle infrastructure), and eventually (most
> likely, given things like funding) displayed on the MUTCD-standard sign for
> that purpose.
>
> (In the USA, there are three bicycle number signs approved by the MUTCD --
> our signage standards -- SG45 is used in California for local bike routes,
> M1-8 is used for state routes, and M1-9 is used for USBR routes).
>
> It is cool that this little countywide (an lcn, l being for "local")
> system for bike routes has familiar "rules:"
>
> Even routes are primarily east-west,
> Odd routes are primarily north-south,
> Major/significant routes end in 0 and 5,
> Three-digit routes XYZ are based off of route YZ with X a primary
> direction (odd, N-S; even, E-W).
> Suffixes can be appended to numbers:
> M = Mountain Bike Trails (no pavement), L = Loop routes, P =
> Pedestrian/walk bike (dismount), Z = planned, not yet implemented or actual
> infrastructure, N, S, E, W are direction-restricted traffic segments, A, B,
> C, D...= Alternate or segmented routes.
>
> Take a look!  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**
> lat=37&layers=C&lon=-122&zoom=**12
>
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] AOL Patch and OpenStreetMap

[Mike N]

On 6/5/2013 10:27 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Not so long ago the maps used on AOL's "patch" properties were
OpenStreetMap based.
It really worked out well since so much of the content was locally
generated, wiki content
matched the wiki maps.

That changed... anyone know when or why?


  My local patch is still OSM based.   When our local editors changed 1 
year ago, I noticed that the new editor almost never tags addresses or 
locations on the map.   But it just shows a generic Open Mapquest map of 
the general Patch coverage area.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] AOL Patch and OpenStreetMap

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Not so long ago the maps used on AOL's "patch" properties were
OpenStreetMap based.
It really worked out well since so much of the content was locally
generated, wiki content
matched the wiki maps.

That changed... anyone know when or why?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[stevea]

I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my 
previous post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY 
EXISTING (Class I, II and III) bicycle infrastructure.  All of the 
"proposed routes" are actual bicycle infrastructure "out there 
today."  What is being proposed is simply the set of numbers to be 
used to identify the routes (in a one-to-one correspondence with 
existing bicycle infrastructure), and eventually (most likely, given 
things like funding) displayed on the MUTCD-standard sign for that 
purpose.


(In the USA, there are three bicycle number signs approved by the 
MUTCD -- our signage standards -- SG45 is used in California for 
local bike routes, M1-8 is used for state routes, and M1-9 is used 
for USBR routes).


It is cool that this little countywide (an lcn, l being for "local") 
system for bike routes has familiar "rules:"


Even routes are primarily east-west,
Odd routes are primarily north-south,
Major/significant routes end in 0 and 5,
Three-digit routes XYZ are based off of route YZ with X a primary 
direction (odd, N-S; even, E-W).

Suffixes can be appended to numbers:
M = Mountain Bike Trails (no pavement), L = Loop routes, P = 
Pedestrian/walk bike (dismount), Z = planned, not yet implemented or 
actual infrastructure, N, S, E, W are direction-restricted traffic 
segments, A, B, C, D...= Alternate or segmented routes.


Take a look!  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37&layers=C&lon=-122&zoom=12

SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, stevea  wrote:

> If Kerry wants me to, I can take it upon myself to remove the tags she
> wants removed.  But I would prefer she do it herself, as the ACA is the
> "feed organization" that is largely "sponsoring" the USBR numbering to
> AASHTO.  Kerry, feel free to contact me either here or via the email
> address you have from corresponding with me back in mid-March of this year,
> and I'd be delighted to help reach consensus upon how OSM tags properly
> reflect the semantics you believe ACA (and perhaps AASHTO) mean to convey
> in the map.


This is the second or third time Kerry's brought this up, and honestly, I'd
like to see more done to persuade her that she's making a mountain out of a
molehill here rather than change the map simply because the idea of some
renderer showing proposed routes is in some way "ugly."
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
> number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not put
> that router/number into proposed status.
>

Then the relevant bodies need to stop bandying about those numbers as if
they're actually proposed.  As far as I can tell, nobody's using any
numbers that haven't been tossed around elsewhere yet, even if it's just a
"we propose some day this route will extend this far" capacity as is the
case with USBR 20 outside of Michigan, USBR 97 outside Alaska, etc.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, KerryIrons wrote:

> I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
> they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
> approved USBRs.  In some cases there is a process underway to get a route
> number assigned (as I noted) but in other cases there has been no project
> initiated.  Someone's perception of "this would make a good US Bicycle
> Route" is not, in my opinion, a justifiable rationale to start assigning
> route numbers at the mapper's discretion.  It would be no different if
> someone thought an existing local road should be a state route, or a state
> route should be a federal route, and then put those tags on an OSM map.
>

I believe this still falls under the category of "state=proposed", in which
the route number is the one that is most likely to be assigned.  That's
definitely the case in Oregon and Oklahoma, where USBR numbers indicated
have even been tossed around by the respective ODOTs.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[stevea]

On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place".


Proposed bicycle routes rendering as dashed lines are VERY useful to 
us (in California, and I suspect many other places as well).  There 
is an entire countywide proposal ("CycleNet") being watched by five 
jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County via the Regional Transportation 
Commission, and even CalTrans.  All of the routes are proposed, and 
there are public meetings pending which are deciding 
if/how/whether/when which routes go from proposed to actual.  Signage 
happens AFTER the routes are approved:  that's the usual distinction 
between proposed and actual routes.  (Though see below:  one can 
imagine a case immediately after approval when signs have not yet 
gone up -- this is usually a rather temporary condition).


Frederik Ramm wrote:

AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.


It is simply the "state=proposed" tag which Andy Allan's opencyclemap 
respects:  if present in the route relation, dashed lines, if not, 
solid lines.  That is why it is valuable:  people can properly 
visualize proposed bicycle routes in OSM (as dashed lines) and then 
when they get approved (by the appropriate agency, after public 
process -- part of which includes the very important step of 
visualization of the route) simply remove the "state=proposed" tag, 
and at next render (a few days at most), the dashes become solid. 
This a highly effective way to use our map with regard to planning 
and implementing bicycle routing.  (Thanks, Andy!)


An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - 
we usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily 
check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are 
unlikely to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.


No, having proposed routes is highly valuable:  it foments and 
encourages public discussion at precisely the level of government 
that corresponds to the level the bicycle route is found in the 
hierarchy (local, state or national).  OSM visualizations of proposed 
routings allow wide, democratic exposure to proposed routes.


On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's 
apparent insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a 
certain route has been approved by a certain third organisation is 
not usually something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM 
approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be 
mapped - if not, then not.


In the USA, AASHTO absolutely IS the organization that approves 
Interstate and USBR numbering (corresponding to network=ncn in OSM). 
They are not some third-party, they are THE party who does it.


An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally 
be mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has 
every right to be mapped.


I disagree with you for good reason:  an AASHTO approved route (it is 
APPROVED!) SHOULD be signposted and MAY be entered into OSM without 
the state=proposed tag.  After all, it is a real route, even if signs 
are still not up (perhaps they are being produced or installed).  I 
sure would like to have a map (Cycle Map layer is terrific) with a 
solid line showing me a bicycle route I intend to ride, ESPECIALLY if 
it is real, but as of yet un-signposted.  Else, how would you follow 
the route?!  A signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO (at 
least at the USBR/national/ncn level) is impossible, at least in the 
USA.  Many will agree that AASHTO is quite slow (decades) to approve 
USBR numbering, which explains why there are so few actual ncn 
routes.  But after having just a handful since the 1970s, in the last 
few years we've seen it go up to over a dozen:  the "dam has finally 
burst" and ACA and AASHTO are finally making some progress.  OSM 
should accurately reflect this, and Kerry is working hard to do just 
this.


If Kerry wants me to, I can take it upon myself to remove the tags 
she wants removed.  But I would prefer she do it herself, as the ACA 
is the "feed organization" that is largely "sponsoring" the USBR 
numbering to AASHTO.  Kerry, feel free to contact me either here or 
via the email address you have from corresponding with me back in 
mid-March of this year, and I'd be delighted to help reach consensus 
upon how OSM tags properly reflect the semantics you believe ACA (and 
perhaps AASHTO) mean to convey in the map.


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Greg Troxel]

Thomas Colson  writes:

> I'm confused: is the issue tagging a bike route with some sort of
> official number when it really doesn’t have one,

The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not put
that router/number into proposed status.

> or just tagging any way as a "bike route" without including an
> official number?

That is not the subject of this discussion, but it's come up before.  My
impression is that the consensus is that it's inappropriate to put in
route tags for something that is both not signposted and not formally
approved by a widely-recognized route-determining authority.  For
example, this view says that a favorite club ride, a charity ride's
route, etc. does not belong in the database.


pgpJ8DgiyjX_t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Thomas Colson]

I’m confused: is the issue tagging a bike route with some sort of official 
number when it really doesn’t have one, 

or just tagging any way as a “bike route” without including an official number?

 

From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:03 PM
To: Martin Koppenhöfer
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer  wrote:



Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm :


> The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be 
> mapped - if not, then not.



Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable on 
paper as well. See administrative borders for instance, they are only very 
punctually surveyable.

 

I think more than that the surveyable / on-the-ground criteria is extended to 
things that can be surveyed by asking a local or a few locals and getting 
reasonably consistent answers, even when not signposted in the usual way.  This 
is sometimes not consistent with the "official" answers.  This could be the 
case with cycling routes but also even place names and borders.

 

(Not a US mapper either except when staying in the US)

 

Cheers

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer  wrote:

>
>
> Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
>
> > The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it
> can be mapped - if not, then not.
>
>
> Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable
> on paper as well. See administrative borders for instance, they are only
> very punctually surveyable.


I think more than that the surveyable / on-the-ground criteria is extended
to things that can be surveyed by asking a local or a few locals and
getting reasonably consistent answers, even when not signposted in the
usual way.  This is sometimes not consistent with the "official" answers.
 This could be the case with cycling routes but also even place names and
borders.

(Not a US mapper either except when staying in the US)

Cheers
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Greg Troxel]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

> An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
> usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily
> check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are
> unlikely to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.

I see verifiability as having a broader sense.  In the case of
officially proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the
government documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the
route numbering authority has in fact put the route into proposed
status.  That's essentially what Kerry is talking about.  That's beyond
looking at signs, but some things on the map aren't obvious from
standing near them - official names are a complicated mix of signs on
the ground, meeting minutes from naming authorities, 911 or tax
databases, etc.  To me, the point is that one can determine an answer by
observing evidence, and reasonable people can discuss the total evidence
and come to rough consensus.

> On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent
> insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain
> route has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually
> something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be

I don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the
federal bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers.  A road is a US
highway if it's officially been designated, and the signs are expected
to keep up with that offiical designation.  If there's a case where a
road has been designated as a US highway, and the locals know it, but
there are no signs (Because they've been stolen, or because there was no
budget to put them up, or the sign people are on strike, or they've all
been knocked down in winter car accidents, or whatever), then it's still
proper to tag it as a US highway.

> that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then
> not.

I do agree that tagging a highway because one wishes that it were
otherwise is bogus.  But as long as a local mapper is determing a form
of reality by relatively objective means, I don't see a problem.

> An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be
> mapped;

I think there may be a bit of terminology confusion: Kerry seems to mean
"approved" as "approved by the numbering authority as a proposed route
which has not yet been constructed/signed".  That's similar to "the
government has decided to extend I-101 on these 10 miles, but hasn't
built it yet".  So either it's ok to show it, or we should remove all
highway=proposed.  But I think it's useful to have highway=proposed, so
that those who want can render it.  highway=proposed is still subject to
crowdsourcing editing and quality control, and should mean that the
cognizant naming authority has published a specific plan.

I think this is the crux of Kerry's point - proposed cycle routes only
make sense if the authority that controls the relevant ref namespace has
actually proposed them.  So even from your verfiability concern
viewpoint, I think if people did as Kerry asked, there would be far
fewer proposed routes in the db, and all of them would be widely
recognized as legitimately and actually proposed.

> and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has
> every right to be mapped.

This is similar to what would happen if someone put up "US 99" signs on
their little side street, just because they were in the mood and had
signs and a hammer and nails.  That doesn't make it US 99 -- it's just
simple vandalism -- , if other evidence says it's not true.  This is
really the same situation.

Now if the guerilla route is not in an official namespace, and the signs
persist, then I have no issue with it being mapped.


pgphgDkhORorB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Frederik Ramm]

Kerry,

On 06.06.2013 00:40, KerryIrons wrote:

It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes.  But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as having a USBR route number.  This is the only thing I
am seeking to have corrected.


Yes, I think I misunderstood; I read "US bicycle routes" as a generic 
term ("a bicycle route in the US") when instead you meant "US Bicycle 
Routes" which is a certain kind of bicycle route that has one issuing 
authority behind it.


Of course it makes no sense to claim that something was an US Bicycle 
Route when it factually isn't.


This is what happens when one particpiates in discussions without the 
necessary background ;) Apologies!


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

Some clarification is needed.

It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes.  But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as having a USBR route number.  This is the only thing I
am seeking to have corrected.  

I won't go into the political difficulties that can arise when a state,
county, or community finds that OSM shows a USBR going through their
jurisdiction when they know nothing about it (AASHTO requires their approval
before designating a USBR).

I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
approved USBRs.  In some cases there is a process underway to get a route
number assigned (as I noted) but in other cases there has been no project
initiated.  Someone's perception of "this would make a good US Bicycle
Route" is not, in my opinion, a justifiable rationale to start assigning
route numbers at the mapper's discretion.  It would be no different if
someone thought an existing local road should be a state route, or a state
route should be a federal route, and then put those tags on an OSM map.

If I am misunderstanding how OSM works, please enlighten me.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:20 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Hi,

On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I am mostly not mapping in the US,

me neither...

> but I'd like to raise awareness that
> in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a 
> problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place".

AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.

An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily check the
correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are unlikely to be
signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.

On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent
insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain route
has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually something
that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be that if a route
is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then not.

An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be
mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every
right to be mapped.

Just my $.02 though.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Martin Koppenhöfer]

Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm :

> The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be 
> mapped - if not, then not.


Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable on 
paper as well. See administrative borders for instance, they are only very 
punctually surveyable. I agree that proposed features are somewhat of an edge 
case. Personally I would only map them if they had some particular significance 
(e.g. they are in the local media for some reason, there is a broader interest).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

This creates major issues for many routes in the US, especially bike
routes, US Historic 66, US Historic 30, and US Historic 666, which due to
regional significance, unique and interesting signage, or both, frequently
are missing trailblazers, confirmation signage or way finding signage in
part or in full on account of theft.  ODOT just replaced US Historic 66
1926-1932 trailblazers and confirmation signs, I expect all of them to be
stolen by July.
On Jun 5, 2013 12:21 PM, "Frederik Ramm"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> I am mostly not mapping in the US,
>>
>
> me neither...
>
>  but I'd like to raise awareness that
>> in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
>> problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place".
>>
>
> AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.
>
> An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
> usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily check the
> correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are unlikely to be
> signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.
>
> On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent
> insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain route
> has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually something
> that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be that if a route
> is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then not.
>
> An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be
> mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every
> right to be mapped.
>
> Just my $.02 though.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I am mostly not mapping in the US,


me neither...


but I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place".


AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.

An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we 
usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily check 
the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are unlikely 
to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.


On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent 
insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain 
route has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually 
something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be 
that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then not.


An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be 
mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every 
right to be mapped.


Just my $.02 though.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/6/5 KerryIrons 

> 3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags in
> the Midwest.  The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle Routes
> should be tagged in OSM.
>
> Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not been
> approved by AASHTO it is incorrect to have them tagged in OpenStreetMaps.
>


I am mostly not mapping in the US, but I'd like to raise awareness that in
Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a problem
as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place". If the
tagging is clear, general renderings (or other data consumers) can decide
whether they would want to display these proposals or simply omit them.



> There are proposed routes for 35 and 50 in Indiana and part of 50 in Ohio
> but since those routes have not been approved by AASHTO the routes are
> subject to change during the implementation process.
>


Yes, it is quite common that there are variations on the way from a
proposed way to a built way / signposted route. There is no problem with
this, you simply update the data in OSM when modifications are applied.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Brad Neuhauser]

Kerry,

NE2 has been indefinitely banned (see
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html ) so
if you want these changed, have at it.

Cheers, Brad

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, KerryIrons wrote:

> Nathan,
>
> 3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags in
> the Midwest.  The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle Routes
> should be tagged in OSM.
>
> Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not been
> approved by AASHTO it is incorrect to have them tagged in OpenStreetMaps.
> There are proposed routes for 35 and 50 in Indiana and part of 50 in Ohio
> but since those routes have not been approved by AASHTO the routes are
> subject to change during the implementation process.  There are no specific
> route proposals for 21, 25, 80, and 84.  Only 20 and 35 in Michigan have
> been approved.
>
> Please advise when you will remove these tags.
>
>
>
> Kerry Irons
> Adventure Cycling Association.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kerry Irons wrote:
> Nathan,
> [...]
> Please advise when you will remove these tags.

"Nathan" (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on
account of his "inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing
project": http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347

It'll therefore fall to the rest of the US community to fix this (assuming
the community agrees!).

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-US-Bicycle-Route-tags-tp5764061p5764067.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

Nathan,

3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags in
the Midwest.  The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle Routes
should be tagged in OSM.

Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not been
approved by AASHTO it is incorrect to have them tagged in OpenStreetMaps.
There are proposed routes for 35 and 50 in Indiana and part of 50 in Ohio
but since those routes have not been approved by AASHTO the routes are
subject to change during the implementation process.  There are no specific
route proposals for 21, 25, 80, and 84.  Only 20 and 35 in Michigan have
been approved.

Please advise when you will remove these tags.



Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Paul Norman]

> From: Shawn K. Quinn [mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:27 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
> 
> I just looked, and the site is showing the ban as expiring in two days
> (which would make it about a week long). Is it supposed to expire that
> soon? Given the circumstances, I would have expected an "indefinite" ban
> to last a bit longer than a week.

It will not be expiring - the reasons it is down as a 96h block right now
are technical in nature and don't reflect an intent to have a block that
lifts at a scheduled time.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 05/giu/2013, at 07:26, "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> Given the circumstances, I would have expected an "indefinite" ban
> to last a bit longer than a week.


for someone who maps 96% of the days, a week is very long...

http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2

cheers,
Martin___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us