Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Russ Nelson]

Serge Wroclawski writes:
 > My opinion is that this is a single data source issue. Unlike other
 > data that we collect, there is nothing in the ground indicating the
 > existence of this as a route. There's no sign indicating where the
 > route is, so there's be no way to collect this data other than by
 > looking at an external dataset and either importing or tracing.

You're just a little bit insane, Serge. Let's say that I follow this
route on my bicycle using a cue sheet and keep a GPS track. Then I load
my GPS track into JOSM and create a relation and call it USBRS #47 (or
whatever). How is this an import??

 > I think that's an import, because it's taking external data and
 > applying it to OSM without even the potential for ground validation.

You're twigging this as an import because there aren't any signs on
the ground. What if I post my cue sheet on a sign? Again, how does
this become an import?

It bears none of the problems of imports:
  o imports create a whole new set of nodes.
  o imports can have copyright issues.
  o imports can be non-human-scale.
  o imports can be data dumps that don't get maintained.
  o imports make bulk changes to the database.

This is nothing like that. Your *only* reason for calling this an
import is because there aren't any signs. Yet. That reason isn't good
enough to call it an "import".

 > We have a lot of data that we could include in OSM that would be
 > useful.

Everything that people care about having in a map is useful. You don't
care about this. Fine. Somebody else doesn't care about something you
want in OSM. Imagine *cooperating* with other people.

 > I think that this kind of data doesn't belong in OSM.

And when you see it on OpenCycleMap? Does it belong there? Should we
fork the database now, so that we have a Serge OSM and a Nelson OSM
and a USBRS OSM? Remember what I said earlier: a little bit insane.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Serge Wroclawski]

Steve,

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM, stevea  wrote:

> After my talk, Serge and Paul (Norman) had lunch with me, and while they
> said that they did not represent the DWG, in fact they actually did.  Serge
> characterized this as "If a cop pulls you over and says 'I'm going to let
> you off with a warning', you don't then respond 'But I wasn't doing anything
> wrong' or more apropos, 'The law is unclear.'"  He challenged my assertion
> that a USBR is a real, tangible thing that ought to be mapped in OSM when it
> doesn't have signs:

Steve, there's so much wrong with your claim that I can't begin to
take it all apart, but I will certainly defend myself against what I
have no choice but to classify as "plain ol' lies".

What I said to you at that time was that I was not wearing my DWG hat
in talking with you because the DWG hadn't received a complaint about
the proposed routes, which were the issue we were discussing. These
were not official routes, these were (and now I will quote you)
"[Using OSM as a] platform for discussion and debate in where the
routes should be placed". I said that OSM was not a place for things
which do not exist and are up for debate. That issue is quite clear
and we had not one or two, at least three emails about it, in addition
to the nearly hour long discussion we had at SOTM US.

You then officially went to the DWG asking about the proposed and
official routes, and the DWG position was that we were not going to
intervene unless we received a complaint from a community member, but
that if you kept pushing the issue, then the DWG would need to do an
investigation, which might result in the deletion of your data. I
didn't want to have to do that because while I think you were in the
wrong, you were generally acting on what I felt to be good faith. I
suggested to you that you drop the issue unless you wanted to make
this official DWG business. In fact, you escalated the issue several
times and I pleaded with you not to because I wanted to avoid needing
the DWG to take an official stance on this data. That is where we left
it.

Proposals/plans do not belong in OSM. That is very clear. OSM is not a
platform for debate about where things should be- it reflects ground
truth only.

USBR data is an edge case because it is not universally ground
verifiable. The DWG has not taken a position on whether or not it
belongs in OSM, but I personally believe that data which comes from a
single source and is not ground verifiable does not belong in OSM.
That view extends to government boundaries such as state and county
boundaries.

> No mention was made at
> that lunch about "Import Guidelilnes" or that the network's entry into OSM
> was "an import."  That came later.

That's correct, because you told me the work was done. If it was done,
there was nothing left to discuss in regards to an import.

Whether or not the non-proposed route data would be classified as an
import is a matter of discussion. I personally believe that this would
be an import- but am happy to entertain the idea that it's not- or
whether or not the data belongs in OSM at all, which is still a
discussion that needs to happen.

The issue of utility, of course, is separate from the issue of "Does
it belong in OSM", as we have had the question of ground verifiability
many times with data which would be useful to have, including property
lines, bird spotting data, wifi access points, etc.

Your email contains things which I believe you know to be false. That
kind of behavior certainly does not make for a condusive collaborative
environment and I believe that you owe both Paul Norman and myself a
personal appology.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

Bike Route 1 on Cape Cod, MA is signed. I saw a bunch of them last
summer biking around on vacation.

In my opinion at this point the new routes should go through the
import process, but given that signs are already up, and over time
more are sure to come, I don't see any problem having the data in OSM.

Jason

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> Russ,
>
> My opinion is that this is a single data source issue. Unlike other
> data that we collect, there is nothing in the ground indicating the
> existence of this as a route. There's no sign indicating where the
> route is, so there's be no way to collect this data other than by
> looking at an external dataset and either importing or tracing.
>
> I think that's an import, because it's taking external data and
> applying it to OSM without even the potential for ground validation.
>
> I did mess up in that I needed to have stated, and will state now,
> that I was not talking from the position of the DWG.
>
>
> We have a lot of data that we could include in OSM that would be
> useful. Every so often someone wants to add property lines. I think
> those would be potentially interesting, but unsurveyable. These bike
> routes are similar. There's nothing on the ground that tells you that
> you're on the particular bus route- which means that the only
> definitive answer we could have about a bus route is some external
> dataset. If two OSMers disagree, the answer will always be "What does
> the original data say?" - rather than "What does the ground look
> like?" - right?
>
> I think that this kind of data doesn't belong in OSM. It's not
> something that lends itself well to OSM. It think it could be mixed in
> during rendering or for routing, but it doesn't belong in OSM proper.
>
> The issue of tracing vs importing is orthogonal to this question.
>
> - Serge
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[stevea]

Richard (Fairhurst):

Thank you for most informative post, sharing with us in the USA your 
experiences of national bicycle network planning and especially 
mapping in OSM.  Your "gentleness" is appreciated -- in fact, it goes 
a long way!


The USA equivalent of the UK's Sustrans (as national bicycle route 
numbering authority) is AASHTO, a non-governmental organization which 
also holds authority to number the USA's Interstate Highway system 
(our national "super-highways") as well as the century-old (or so) 
older "US Routes" highway system -- what might be called a national 
network of secondary highways next to the primary Interstates. 
Importantly, in the realm of AASHTO's "Special Committee" which 
designates Interstate, US Highways and USBR numbers, AASHTO assigns 
as proxy and/or partners with Adventure Cycling Association tasks of 
USBRS administration.  In fact, you can see Kerry Irons' name here 
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/USBicycleRoutes.aspx on 
AASHTO's web site.


Kerry (an august and respected poster here on talk-us for at least a 
couple of years) and I have been working together for over a year 
(and I even longer) to correct major mistakes in, and generally 
"brighten up" the USBRS so it now sings a vibrant harmony of what we 
(the USA) mean by "our national bicycle route system."  You can see 
the talk I gave on this topic April 13 at SOTM-US in Washington, DC 
here http://stateofthemap.us/session/us-bicycle-route-system-mapping 
.  An absolutely VITAL understanding of how OSM must not get ahead of 
routing, proposals and reality was key to this process evolving as it 
did.


Kerry and I were very sensitive to the problem of what was meant by 
"proposed routes" and our solution was to create a "high bar 
standard" before a route was even considered as a proposed route that 
might potentially enter OSM:  there has to be a "real statewide 
project" (by a statewide Department of Transportation/DOT) before OSM 
might even consider making a route relation entry (for a proposed 
USBR).  We recognized (firsthand with NE2's mess!) the dangers of 
"proposed" and we got on top of it with what we think is a very solid 
(and now well articulated) formalization.  We have been documenting 
this (and implementing it) for the better part of a year.  NOBODY in 
OSM suggests that we remove these routes -- in fact, quite the 
opposite -- I receive many hearty thanks and willing participants to 
improve the system via the "adopt-a-route" crowdsourcing methodology 
we have found to work quite well.


After my talk, Serge and Paul (Norman) had lunch with me, and while 
they said that they did not represent the DWG, in fact they actually 
did.  Serge characterized this as "If a cop pulls you over and says 
'I'm going to let you off with a warning', you don't then respond 
'But I wasn't doing anything wrong' or more apropos, 'The law is 
unclear.'"  He challenged my assertion that a USBR is a real, 
tangible thing that ought to be mapped in OSM when it doesn't have 
signs:  it can be verified (by a DOT or AASHTO or its proxy, ACA) but 
it cannot be verified ON THE GROUND if there are no signs.  I did not 
disagree with Serge, but found this assertion to be both puzzling 
(there are MANY objects in OSM which are not on-the-ground 
verifiable, like borders, some county roads and even groups of state 
highway routes) and troubling (are USBRs in danger of being deleted?) 
No mention was made at that lunch about "Import Guidelilnes" or that 
the network's entry into OSM was "an import."  That came later.


Because of contradictions in the support OSM has given to "proposed" 
from Day 1 (saying what it did on our wiki's Proposed page, since 
fuzzied and supposedly-clarified but unclearly possibly retracted by 
Fredrick's Red Triangle Warning) and the fact that mapnik/Standard 
and Cycle Map layer (OSM's #1 and #2 promoted renderers, 
respectively) clearly support "proposed" as dashed lines in numerous 
rendered outputs, my confusion rose to the level of a formal Plea for 
clarification to the DWG:  specifically regarding how OSM should 
document APPROVED routes, and how OSM should document PROPOSED routes 
(if at all).  As a reply, I was told "it's in your best interest to 
let this discussion end" and "please drop this."


I took that to mean that the nature of "Proposed" in OSM had rather 
suddenly changed (indeed, Frederick changed the Proposed wiki page 
hours later) and felt I had been stung with an "ex post facto" 
ruling.  Still, I  respectfully refrained from adding additional 
proposed routes because of this.  However, a few days ago, AASHTO 
approved ACTUAL new USBRs (not proposed ones) and I felt OK asking 
the community to help map the several hundred kilometers of work it 
would take to sync up these new members in the system with our map. 
These are ACTUAL routes:  on par with Interstate highways.  They 
likely don't have signs today, but they shall/might in the future.


And here we are. 

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2014-06-01 10:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Generally in the UK we only map proposed NCN routes when
a) we have some personal knowledge of them, and
b) the route has a serious likelihood of being signposted in the next
couple of years


This is pretty much the standard for mapping network=ncn routes in the 
U.S., now that the unofficial ACA routes have been demoted to network=rcn.



However, there are other proposed routes in the local area where there is no
particular action underway at present to find funding or to fix issues
identified with the route. For example, NCN 536 is a proposed route from
Banbury (part of my patch) to Northampton, but: no funding has been
identified, some physical works will be required before it can open, and the
"flow" isn't currently deemed a priority. It's very unlikely indeed to open
in the next two years, and consequently it isn't mapped on OSM.


Steve wasn't talking about proposed routes at all: USBRs 1, 10, 36, 37, 
and 50 are officially approved routes. There's nothing to "open", though 
the signage situation varies from state to state. AASHTO designation 
doesn't come with a deadline for signage, but the state DOTs didn't go 
through the trouble of getting local and national approval just to sit 
on these designations. And when the signs do go up, we can be assured 
that they'll go up along the officially approved routes.



On occasion, mapping a proposed route can be actively dangerous and
misleading. Sometimes a proposed NCN route will follow a busy road or rough
terrain, or cross private land; fixing this will be one of the "to-dos"
before the route can be opened. Showing it on a map, even as a dotted line,
can encourage cyclists to venture into unsuitable conditions. (Yes, in
theory "caveat emptor", but I have encountered people who have been misled
by such proposed routes showing on a map.)


The routes were approved along public roads in their current condition, 
so it isn't a matter of waiting for rights of way, bike trails, or lane 
reconfigurations. [1] In fact, most of the local jurisdictions in Ohio 
only supported USBR 50 because all they have to do is accept 
state-provided signage on their locally-maintained roads and trails. 
(They're all worried about cuts to state funding for local governments.)


[1] In a few limited cases, the route log notes ongoing road 
construction along the intended route and provides a detour route. I 
think those cases should be handled just like standard construction detours.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Martijn van Exel]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Richard. Regarding OSM 'not being
too far ahead' of reality - I think we should think of OSM as being
part of defining that reality, rather than just following it.
Authoritativeness in its traditional sense is an eroding concept, and
with the quality of 'authoritative' data here in the U.S. being what
it is, we see folks turning to OSM (and other citizen generated
information sources) for information and answers. It has come to the
point where governments are actively seeking out the help of OSM to
keep their information current. This does perhaps not reflect the
reality in most of Europe, where well-funded public and semi-public
organizations for creating and maintaining geospatial information
exist. But it is our reality, and probably that of large parts of the
world. In that reality, I think OSM is instrumental in providing
people with the best information they can get. With regards to
trustworthiness (you allude to potentially dangerous situations
resulting from mapping proposed routes) I would argue that OSM not
only has the tools to alleviate those concerns, but also a maturing
audience of users who realize that they are using a community-built
information source. That is where I am coming from when I argue in
favor of mapping these routes, and I hope it clarifies my position.

Martijn



On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> I would love to see these routes in OSM, and I think it's a shame
>> that there is such an ongoing fuss about it.
>
> May I gently offer some experience from n years of both mapping and
> developing National Cycle Network routes in the UK. (As well as being an
> OSMer I'm a regional group co-ordinator for Sustrans, the organisation that
> looks after and develops the NCN.)
>
> Generally in the UK we only map proposed NCN routes when
>a) we have some personal knowledge of them, and
>b) the route has a serious likelihood of being signposted in the next
> couple of years
>
> For example, I was happy to map NCN 442, our new route across the Cotswolds,
> as "proposed" because I knew very well that it was likely to open before
> long - not least because largely I identified the alignment and bid for the
> funding for it! And indeed it's now signposted and open:
> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/prime-minister-opens-new-section-national-cycle-network
>
> However, there are other proposed routes in the local area where there is no
> particular action underway at present to find funding or to fix issues
> identified with the route. For example, NCN 536 is a proposed route from
> Banbury (part of my patch) to Northampton, but: no funding has been
> identified, some physical works will be required before it can open, and the
> "flow" isn't currently deemed a priority. It's very unlikely indeed to open
> in the next two years, and consequently it isn't mapped on OSM.
>
> On occasion, mapping a proposed route can be actively dangerous and
> misleading. Sometimes a proposed NCN route will follow a busy road or rough
> terrain, or cross private land; fixing this will be one of the "to-dos"
> before the route can be opened. Showing it on a map, even as a dotted line,
> can encourage cyclists to venture into unsuitable conditions. (Yes, in
> theory "caveat emptor", but I have encountered people who have been misled
> by such proposed routes showing on a map.)
>
>
>
> Obviously you'll make your own decisions, but I'd encourage you to follow
> similar principles for the USBRS project. Or in summary: OSM can be a little
> way ahead of reality... but not too far ahead.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> (making a rare break from my not-posting-on-mailing-lists rule)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/USBRS-WikiProject-seeks-volunteer-mappers-tp5807660p5807703.html
> Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I would love to see these routes in OSM, and I think it's a shame
> that there is such an ongoing fuss about it.

May I gently offer some experience from n years of both mapping and
developing National Cycle Network routes in the UK. (As well as being an
OSMer I'm a regional group co-ordinator for Sustrans, the organisation that
looks after and develops the NCN.)

Generally in the UK we only map proposed NCN routes when
   a) we have some personal knowledge of them, and
   b) the route has a serious likelihood of being signposted in the next
couple of years

For example, I was happy to map NCN 442, our new route across the Cotswolds,
as "proposed" because I knew very well that it was likely to open before
long - not least because largely I identified the alignment and bid for the
funding for it! And indeed it's now signposted and open:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/prime-minister-opens-new-section-national-cycle-network

However, there are other proposed routes in the local area where there is no
particular action underway at present to find funding or to fix issues
identified with the route. For example, NCN 536 is a proposed route from
Banbury (part of my patch) to Northampton, but: no funding has been
identified, some physical works will be required before it can open, and the
"flow" isn't currently deemed a priority. It's very unlikely indeed to open
in the next two years, and consequently it isn't mapped on OSM.

On occasion, mapping a proposed route can be actively dangerous and
misleading. Sometimes a proposed NCN route will follow a busy road or rough
terrain, or cross private land; fixing this will be one of the "to-dos"
before the route can be opened. Showing it on a map, even as a dotted line,
can encourage cyclists to venture into unsuitable conditions. (Yes, in
theory "caveat emptor", but I have encountered people who have been misled
by such proposed routes showing on a map.)



Obviously you'll make your own decisions, but I'd encourage you to follow
similar principles for the USBRS project. Or in summary: OSM can be a little
way ahead of reality... but not too far ahead.

cheers
Richard
(making a rare break from my not-posting-on-mailing-lists rule)





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/USBRS-WikiProject-seeks-volunteer-mappers-tp5807660p5807703.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Martijn van Exel]

My apologies for posting the last message using my openstreetmap.us
account. This is my personal view, and has nothing to do with my
official capacity as osm.us chapter board member.

Martijn

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martijn van Exel
 wrote:
> I would love to see these routes in OSM, and I think it's a shame that
> there is such an ongoing fuss about it. I really do appreciate the
> on-the-ground verifiability rule, but given that even 'approved'
> imports like the NYC buildings most likely don't fully adhere to that
> rule, given that it's such a relatively small amount of data that
> would not even be visible on the osm.org tiles, and given the time and
> positive energy invested into this by Steve, I feel there is something
> else going on that ticks people off about this particular proposal. I
> would love to hear what that is, because I do want to understand why
> this is such a big ongoing issue.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:19 AM, stevea  wrote:
>> Maybe I should have cross-posted?
>>
>> Please see my recent post to the import-us list at
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2014-June/000583.html
>>
>> Oh, and thank you, Minh.  While 'tis true that the USBRS itself (as physical
>> infrastructure) "needs a good deal of work," like a few more signs (it has
>> some, but not a lot), it is also true that it is fairly well represented in
>> OSM (as logical infrastructure, using the small cost of a few dozen route
>> relations).  AND it has been since July 2013!  It's not easy, "automatic
>> pilot" to keep it this way, but instead is a manageable and delightful bit
>> of effort which I seem to have matched well with my passion to map.  It is
>> my pleasure to continue, should the community wish to support me doing so.
>> A lot of people are trying to get along, make a "large thing" work, and we
>> seem pretty close, except for a bit of ragged misunderstanding around some
>> edges that are a bit smeary anyway.  We can fix this.
>>
>> Heck, maybe we largely already have.
>>
>> SteveA
>> California
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> President, US Chapter
> OpenStreetMap
> http://openstreetmap.us/
> http://osm.org/



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Martijn van Exel]

I would love to see these routes in OSM, and I think it's a shame that
there is such an ongoing fuss about it. I really do appreciate the
on-the-ground verifiability rule, but given that even 'approved'
imports like the NYC buildings most likely don't fully adhere to that
rule, given that it's such a relatively small amount of data that
would not even be visible on the osm.org tiles, and given the time and
positive energy invested into this by Steve, I feel there is something
else going on that ticks people off about this particular proposal. I
would love to hear what that is, because I do want to understand why
this is such a big ongoing issue.

Martijn

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:19 AM, stevea  wrote:
> Maybe I should have cross-posted?
>
> Please see my recent post to the import-us list at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2014-June/000583.html
>
> Oh, and thank you, Minh.  While 'tis true that the USBRS itself (as physical
> infrastructure) "needs a good deal of work," like a few more signs (it has
> some, but not a lot), it is also true that it is fairly well represented in
> OSM (as logical infrastructure, using the small cost of a few dozen route
> relations).  AND it has been since July 2013!  It's not easy, "automatic
> pilot" to keep it this way, but instead is a manageable and delightful bit
> of effort which I seem to have matched well with my passion to map.  It is
> my pleasure to continue, should the community wish to support me doing so.
> A lot of people are trying to get along, make a "large thing" work, and we
> seem pretty close, except for a bit of ragged misunderstanding around some
> edges that are a bit smeary anyway.  We can fix this.
>
> Heck, maybe we largely already have.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



-- 
Martijn van Exel
President, US Chapter
OpenStreetMap
http://openstreetmap.us/
http://osm.org/

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[stevea]

Maybe I should have cross-posted?

Please see my recent post to the import-us list at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2014-June/000583.html

Oh, and thank you, Minh.  While 'tis true that the USBRS itself (as 
physical infrastructure) "needs a good deal of work," like a few more 
signs (it has some, but not a lot), it is also true that it is fairly 
well represented in OSM (as logical infrastructure, using the small 
cost of a few dozen route relations).  AND it has been since July 
2013!  It's not easy, "automatic pilot" to keep it this way, but 
instead is a manageable and delightful bit of effort which I seem to 
have matched well with my passion to map.  It is my pleasure to 
continue, should the community wish to support me doing so.  A lot of 
people are trying to get along, make a "large thing" work, and we 
seem pretty close, except for a bit of ragged misunderstanding around 
some edges that are a bit smeary anyway.  We can fix this.


Heck, maybe we largely already have.

SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 78, Issue 32

[Volker Schmidt]

I am involved in similar work for the Bicitalia bicycle route network here
in Italy.
To be honest I had not considered even the possibility of considering this
an import.
The approach has been:
Where already signposted the Bicitalia routes get inserted as normal
relations.
Where the routes were inserted in the final proposal phase, this happened
in the following way:
I checked manually in the map every single way both for geometry and
tagging, and then inserted it into a relation with status=proposed.
Checking for geometry is necessary because we have a couple of mappers in
the area who put ways into the map, from areal photography, with TIGER1
precision, obviously not good enough for cycling. Sometimes ways would be
missing altogether.
We selected status=proposed for these reasons:
1) the route shows up as dashed on OpenCycleMap
2) as most, if not all ways of the routes, are already existent and can be
used, it is useful for cyclists
3) a map with dashed lines is a very useful tool when talking to
administrators, especially as you can see in this way how they are inserted
into the cycling infrastructure (i.e. cycle paths and cycle lanes.)
4) the conversion to the final implementation of the route is easy

In our experience point 3 has been particularly helpful.

I think as this is a very manual and gradual process; I would not call it
an import.

Volker
Padova, Italy


On 1 June 2014 00:43,  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://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. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea)
>2. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski)
>3. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Ian Dees)
>4. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski)
>5. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Frederik Ramm)
>6. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:10 -0700
> From: stevea 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>
> OSM's USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers to help map new
> APPROVED United States Bicycle Routes.  Please see
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System
> , a reference and status report for the project.  Effective
> immediately,
>
> USBR 1 in Massachusetts
> USBR 10 in Washington state
> USBR 36 and 37 in Illinois
> USBR 50 in the District of Columbia and
> USBR 50 in Ohio
>
> were declared by AASHTO as approved national routes.  These are
> essentially equivalent to freshly opened Interstate highways, except
> these are for bicycles.  Very helpful would be additional experienced
> OSM volunteers, comfortable editing OSM relations, to
> improve/complete USBRs 1, 10, 37 and 50 (in Ohio) by adding
> additional route members to a relation from a soft-copy map or text
> description of the route.
>
> If you wish to help build our national bicycle network in OSM, please
> contact me to obtain route data to enter into OSM.  The wiki offers
> technical/tagging guidance, as well as acts as a progress reporting
> mechanism.
>
> It is important to communicate your intentions and progress via email
> or preferably wiki.  The project has established process and enjoys
> new growth by asking widely for additional volunteers, so please pay
> attention to the many moving parts by keeping communication flowing
> where it needs to.  (Get route data via email, wiki update your
> progress).  USBRS is ~10,000 kilometers and has momentum to grow to
> 20,000 in the medium-term future.  Help out by adopting a route near
> you!
>
> Though this work isn't difficult, each route might take a few hours
> of effort starting with an email.  After you complete a route in OSM,
> one reward is to see the red line of a new, official USBR blossom in
> Cycle Map layer.  Other rewards happen for on-the-ground participants
> (cities, counties, state DOTs, the public, stakeholders, bicycle
> coalition groups...), who see the route in our widely available map.
> This encourages more routes to emerge in a geographically friendly
> way, facilitating harmonious progress and further growth in our
> national bicycle network.
>
> To begin your contributions to this OSM WikiProject, reply using
> steveaO

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Mike N]

On 6/1/2014 12:32 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Why would that necessarily be
imported? And how do you import a route, anyway?


  Similarly, there have been projects to add route relations to state 
and county routes.   Depending on the availability of sources from the 
state, the mapper may end up working from PDFs of varying quality and 
making judgement calls in order to create those relations.Do we 
treat these projects as imports as well?



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

[Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Serge Wroclawski]

Russ,

My opinion is that this is a single data source issue. Unlike other
data that we collect, there is nothing in the ground indicating the
existence of this as a route. There's no sign indicating where the
route is, so there's be no way to collect this data other than by
looking at an external dataset and either importing or tracing.

I think that's an import, because it's taking external data and
applying it to OSM without even the potential for ground validation.

I did mess up in that I needed to have stated, and will state now,
that I was not talking from the position of the DWG.


We have a lot of data that we could include in OSM that would be
useful. Every so often someone wants to add property lines. I think
those would be potentially interesting, but unsurveyable. These bike
routes are similar. There's nothing on the ground that tells you that
you're on the particular bus route- which means that the only
definitive answer we could have about a bus route is some external
dataset. If two OSMers disagree, the answer will always be "What does
the original data say?" - rather than "What does the ground look
like?" - right?

I think that this kind of data doesn't belong in OSM. It's not
something that lends itself well to OSM. It think it could be mixed in
during rendering or for routing, but it doesn't belong in OSM proper.

The issue of tracing vs importing is orthogonal to this question.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2014-05-31 14:06, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should
be following the import guidelines.


In the past, on-road bike routes were typically advertised via maps and 
annual guidebooks rather than reassurance markers. The U.S. Bike Route 
System is an official attempt to move beyond dead trees in favor of 
signage. State DOTs often post "FUTURE" shields years or even decades 
before an Interstate route becomes official. But no DOT has the budget 
to lavish that kind of attention on bicyclists. :-)


The fact that these new routes currently have no signage certainly 
raises the bar for verification. Fortunately, primary sources like [1] 
are much less prone to data entry errors than actual databases. And 
unlike unofficial touring routes, there's nothing ephemeral about USBRs: 
any route change requires the written approval of an AASHTO special 
committee, as with an Interstate. If nothing else, authoritative sources 
can help to eliminate guesswork, which is one step towards ground truth.


While we're waiting for signs to go up, the good news is that some 
states have opted to primarily route USBRs along existing off-road bike 
paths that we've already mapped through some combination of GPS tracks, 
local knowledge, and aerial tracing. The cycleways themselves can be 
verified on the ground. We just want to add the cycleway to an 
additional route relation. Detailed route logs would only be necessary 
for filling in the less obvious parts of the route.


I've never gone through the formal import process -- for a lack of 
sources, not compliance -- but it seems to me that the guidelines are 
written as a defense against fly-by-night dumps of poorly vetted data. 
I'm sure anyone with raw bike route data would want to comply with the 
guidelines, but what about other kinds of sources? Many of the steps 
simply don't apply.


So far, I've cobbled together a relation for USBR 50 in Ohio along 
well-known trails, based on descriptions in news reports and recorded 
village council meetings. Now that the route has been approved by 
AASHTO, it'd be very tempting to fill in the gaps based on the official 
route log. [2] Of course, I can't do that without ODOT's prior 
permission, in case of copyright concerns. But to give you a sense of 
how far removed this work is from a conventional import, I plan to use 
nothing more than iD or maybe Potlatch, adding lots of water towers and 
ballfields along the way.


Steve is championing a piece of transportation infrastructure that could 
become a showcase for OSM's versatility but that currently needs a good 
deal of work. The USBRs are an opportunity for the OSM community to 
start productive relationships with DOTs and advocacy groups. We need 
more WikiProjects like it.


[1] 

[2] 



--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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