Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval

[Kerry Irons]

Yes, for USBR 201 we essentially followed the ECGW.  This made for some 
less-than-direct segments, but that was what the locals wanted.  But that does 
not mean that the route shown on OSM Cycle is proposed USBR 201.  Only when you 
see the 201 tag on the map will this be the case.


Kerry

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Elliott Plack 
Cc: talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending 
AASHTO approval

On Sep 22, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Elliott Plack  wrote:
> Great work getting these into the map already Steve! I work on the MDOT bike 
> team (as a GIS consultant) so it is great to see this on the map so quickly.

Thank you, Elliott; nice to see your reply!  I agree about "so quickly:"  I 
posted a request here and just a couple/few days later, an intrepid OSM 
volunteer had finished USBR 201 in Maryland before I could brew a cup of 
coffee!  Then, when it was suggested that the route become fully 
bi-directional, he quickly refined it to be so (just yesterday).  Wow!  (OSM 
has some great mappers!)

> A note about the *proposed* routes, they do appear in the OSM Cyclemap 
> already [1].
> [1] = 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5798=-76.6054#map=15/39.57
> 98/-76.6054=C

I believe what is going on here is that East Coast Greenway (ECG, a 
"quasi-national" bicycle route not part of the USBRS, but sometimes, like here, 
sharing segments with it as USBR 201) is that OpenCycleMap (OCM) is in the 
process of redrawing the combined / shared segments of ECG + USBR 201 (in 
Maryland).  OCM can (and often does) take several days or even a week or two to 
re-render.  And, Andy Allan (OCM's author/maintainer) recently upgraded OCM to 
vector tiles with some newer rules for how specific tags (including and 
especially routes tagged state=proposed) are differently-rendered than as 
before (before vector tiles).  If I'm mistaken and somebody wants to correct me 
here, I welcome that, as I'm speculating a bit at what/how OCM is "currently 
rendering."  It's a bit like watching paint dry:  the colors can change a bit 
as it does.

> Instead of using the `state=proposed` tagging [2], you might consider putting 
> a lifecycle prefix [3] on the network tag so as to prevent data users from 
> integrating it blindly.
> [2] = 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11654314#map=11/39.5964/-76.202
> 2=C [3] = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

The usage of state=proposed on bicycle routes is long (in my experience, going 
back to about 2010) and somewhat complex history, I've exchanged quite a bit 
(though not TOO frequent!) emails with Andy on this, he has been most helpful, 
especially with the switch to vector tiles earlier this year.  It is also quite 
deliberate, as state=proposed DOES render (in OCM as dashed, not solid) but 
does NOT render in Lonvia's waymarkedtrails bicycle renderer, providing a 
contrast between seeing the routes as proposed (and dashed) or not as all, as 
they are "not quite yet approved nor signed (yet)."  This contrast is 
documented in our USBRS wiki.  Additionally, a newer bicycle renderer (cyclosm) 
has emerged which also renders state=proposed.

I very much like the idea of Lifecycle_prefix in addition to state=proposed (I 
don't think it must be a choice between one and the other).  Using both tags 
(state and a lifecycle prefix) somewhat "standardizes" the concept of 
"proposed" in a wider OSM context, while continuing use of state=proposed (as 
it is supported in OCM), allowing the "dashing" of routes so tagged to continue 
in those renderers where the tag is applied and is supported.  We (OSM, ACA, a 
sponsor of USBRS, even AASHTO itself) have all participated in rather carefully 
crafting and or supporting this process and set of tags, which emerged in 2013. 
 I gave a talk at SOTM-US / Washington, DC about this in April, 2014 and we've 
been using this carefully-hammered-out consensus since.  Your suggestion to 
consider Lifecycle_prefix in addition is both welcome and excellent, imo.  
Thank you.

If anybody wishes to contribute a suggested strategy to include 
Lifecycle_prefix tagging in our USBRS wiki, I welcome that and also consider 
doing so myself.

What a great project (OSM) we have here, SteveA 
___
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] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval

[Kerry Irons]

Correction.  USBR 1 in Washington DC is a new route.  Only 7.5 miles long, but 
on the other side of the river from USBR 50.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 1:54 PM
To: talk-us 
Subject: United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval

There are at least four new national bicycle routes "pending" in the USBRS!  
(Ballots by state Departments of Transportation before AASHTO's Autumn 2020 
round):

USBR 11 in West Virginia (done in OSM),
USBR 30 in North Dakota (done in OSM),
USBR 50 in Washington, District of Columbia (a realignment only, done in OSM) 
and USBR 201 in Maryland.

To help OSM "get ahead of the curve" of the Autumn 2020 AASHTO ballot, the USBR 
201 application by Maryland DOT is available, allowing OSM to enter these 
state-at-a-time national bicycle route data.  This route has been "seeded" as a 
route relation and still needs to be fully entered into OSM.  Please visit our 
wiki 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM
 for a link to the route data ballot for USBR 201 in Maryland.  OSM-US has 
explicit permission from AASHTO to enter these data from these ballots.

Thank you for helping to build Earth's largest official cycling route network:  
check out our wiki, follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have 
fun making bicycle route data in OSM more complete and better!

SteveA
California
One of many USBRS-in-OSM folks (among other hats I wear)


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

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Kerry Irons]

It's Copper Country, not Cooper Country.

Kerry Irons

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 1:55 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My goodness, look at that monstrosity:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627
>>
>> How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land constitute
>> a single OpenStreetMap feature?
>>
>
> Because they share a name, share a management plan, are managed as a
> whole, are signed alike, enjoy the same protection status, and are
> popularly thought of as a unit.
>
> The US has some untidy and diffuse features. Some of those untidy and
> diffuse features are important to those who live around them, earn their
> livings by them, or recreate in them. Don't demand that we refrain from
> mapping them because they fail to conform with your mental model of the
> world as it ought to be. It comes across as saying, "My model is fine, fix
> your country!" I can't fix it, in any reasonable timeframe at least. I'm
> constrained to mapping the country I have.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> 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] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Kerry Irons]

They apply calcium chloride solution as a dust control agent.  CaCl2, AKA 
“cackle 2”

 

 

From: Mike Thompson  
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 6:51 PM
To: brad 
Cc: talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote:

Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around 
here (CO).  

I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and CO) 
and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted.  They get graded once a year 
perhaps to remove the wash boards, and some have a coating of something applied 
to keep the dust down.

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Kerry Irons]

Having watched this discussion, I feel I can add a little bit.

There is a collection of "agencies" with different titles and different 
functions that GENERALLY fall into this category.  COG (council of 
governments), TPO (transportation planning organization), RPO (regional 
planning organization), RPA (regional planning authority), TPA (transportation 
planning authority), MPO (municipal planning organization), and more.  These 
are organized for various purposes and have varying functions, and Anthony is 
right: few citizens would even vaguely recognize their existence, let alone 
their function.  And of course their function varies widely.  There may well be 
specific rules (varying by state) for how each of these operate, though I am 
not familiar with any of that.

In at least some states, these agencies form once the population of a 
contiguous area reaches a threshold.  There is often some funding flowing to 
the agencies as a result.  Their boundaries can cross many jurisdictional 
boundaries.  They cross state lines, county lines, township lines, and city 
lines.  In denser population areas, they often butt up against one another.  In 
more rural regions, there are significant gaps between them.

Their ability to actually control things varies.  As an example, our local TPO 
(actually called a Coordinating Council) has an active transportation plan that 
shows a 4-foot paved shoulder on a county road that is popular with bicyclists. 
 The county transportation plan shows the same thing.  But the road commission, 
whose members are appointed by the county board but are otherwise essentially 
independent (somewhat analogous to judges appointed for life), would not have 
added the 4-foot shoulders to the road without extra money contributed by the 
county, affected townships, and citizen donations.  The TPO plan was of 
interest to the road commission and nothing more.

I'll leave it to others as to whether the boundaries of the agencies should be 
mapped, but I thought it would be useful to help in understanding them.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Anthony Costanzo  
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:15 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

Going to chime in here as someone who has lived the majority of his life in CT.

I am quite familiar with CT's 8 counties and their geographic forms.
But I only have a vague idea what a COG is and couldn't have told you offhand 
anything about where the boundaries between them are.

I support the idea that counties in CT should be tagged the same as they are in 
other states. On the most basic level, this is simply consistent - why should 
CT be tagged differently than elsewhere?
But even on a more nuanced level... the average person isn't concerned about 
what government functions are or aren't associated with a county. CT's counties 
have no associated government (anymore) but they are still commonly used for 
statistical purposes and they still have cultural relevance as well - you will 
hear references in casual conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties. 
Meanwhile ask any Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will 
probably answer "what's a COG".

Great current example of this, look at the state's reporting on covid
cases: 
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary5132020.pdf?la=en
Page 2 shows current hospitalizations by county. No reference to COGs to be 
found.

Thus, counties should retain their admin level tags, and COGs should be tagged 
less prominently.

___
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] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Kerry Irons]

Good work harald. Thanks for your time.

Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 2:53 PM Harald Kliems  wrote:

> Another quick update: Work on the relatively short USBR 230 segment is
> complete as well. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10967108
>
>  Harald (hobbesvsboyle)
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:37 PM stevea  wrote:
>
>> I just finished entering the last 15% - 20% of USBR 50 in California as a
>> "first draft" into OSM.  Thanks for entering the first 80% or so, Bradley:
>> teamwork!
>>
>> SteveA
>
>
>
> --
> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
> Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
> ___
> 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] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Kerry Irons]

Bradley,

All I can say about Tong Rd. is that this is the recommended route from El 
Dorado County, and that RideWithGPS recognizes it as accessible.  Not to say 
that RWGPS is infallible, but the fact that Strava heatmap shows regular usage 
is a strong indication that it is indeed open.

I'm not familiar with how the "private road" concept is implemented in 
California, but in Michigan I know that unless posted with something like 
"closed to public" private roads are treated as open to the public.

The eastbound route goes to the ramps on Lincoln Hwy to make a U-turn onto NB 
Silva Valley Pkwy and then onto Tong.


Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Bradley White  
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:08 PM
To: Kerry Irons 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending 
AASHTO approval

Completed Placerville to Folsom - couple questions.

Is the suggested segment along Tong Road accessible to the public?
It's a recommended "neighborhood connector" according to the Western El Dorado 
County Bike Map and appears to see decent traffic according to Strava heatmap, 
but the parcel map for El Dorado County doesn't show it as a right-of-way, and 
the old (probably out of date!) California Cross State Bicycle Route Study says 
that the roadway has been gated off and was under investigation as to whether 
it was open to the public or not. Signage at the end of Old Bass Lake road 
seems to suggest the road is private (street view with 
that-which-shall-not-be-named), but I have often seen these signs up along a 
road where the land around the road is private but the road itself is a public 
ROW.

Also, there is no physical crossing to turn EB from Silva Valley Pkwy onto Tong 
Rd - one would be required to either dismount in the middle of the road and 
walk, or bunny hop up over the median crossing four lanes of traffic. There are 
also no crosswalks to circumnavigate the barrier anywhere around. I have added 
a crossing here as a footway with crossing_ref=none but this seems dubious to 
me and difficult to tag appropriately.


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

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Kerry Irons]

Bradley,

The direction at the US 50 crossing is what RideWithGPS created and clearly it 
is wrong.  It should describe a left turn ONTO Sierra Blanca Rd. and there 
should be no reference to Pondarado Rd.

The decision to cross US 50 at this point was made by El Dorado County.

Thanks for catching this detail.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Bradley White  
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:00 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending 
AASHTO approval

>If you are in California (or even if not!) and want to enter USBR 50, helping 
>to build Earth's largest official cycling route network, check out our wiki, 
>follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun!

Just finished adding the route from SLT to Placerville, plan to continue west 
as I have time.

Aside: Curiously, the crossing proposed across US 50 at Sierra Blanca (line 21 
- confusing to follow since you do not "continue on" but instead turn left and 
cross 50 to get to Sierra Blanca, and Ponderado Rd. is not involved in the 
route at all per El Dorado County road map) appears to be illegal, unless this 
somehow counts as an implicit crossing under CA law. Not to mention having to 
cross 6 lanes of 65
mph+ traffic! I would prefer to stay on Carson Rd. until it reconnects
with El Dorado Trail myself.

___
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] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

[Kerry Irons]

Sam,

 

The ultimate goal of the ECGW is to be 100% off road, so you will see the ECGW 
(and local communities who are ECGW supporters) jump onto paved paths for short 
distances on occasion.  Thanks for taking care of this.  We’ll see how long it 
takes to show up first in OCM and then when RWGPS will recognize it for routing.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Sam Ley  
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 12:25 AM
To: Kerry Irons 
Cc: talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

 

Hi Kerry,

 

That is a bit of an odd trail spur to be included in the greenway, since it 
just dodges off of Beach St, and then right back on, but maybe passing by the 
park gives some opportunity for restrooms that would ordinarily be missed. I've 
added it, and connected it to the ECG relation so it should start showing up on 
OSM driven maps soon.

 

-Sam

 

Clifford,



Paved.  The city wants the ECGW and USBR 1 to be co-designated, and the ECGW 
map (https://map.greenway.org 
<https://slack-redir.net/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmap.greenway.org> ) shows this 
bike path as being on the ECGW.

Kerry 



From: Clifford Snow mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us> > 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 7:46 PM
To: Kerry Irons mailto:irons54vor...@gmail.com> >
Cc: talk-us mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

Kerry - the new cycle path has been added. See 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/29.19623/-81.01173 
<https://slack-redir.net/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2F%23map%3D19%2F29.19623%2F-81.01173>
 

Do you know if it is paved or what kind of surface? Is it supposed to connect 
to the ECG, the East Coast Greenway route? From Strava it doesn't appear to?



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

Re: [Talk-us] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

[Kerry Irons]

Thanks Clifford.  I will explore ways Adventure Cycling might recruit mappers.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Clifford Snow  
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 6:43 PM
To: Kerry Irons 
Cc: talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

 

I passed along your request on the US Slack Channel. Sam Ley is going to take a 
look at the area tonight. 

 

Can you also ask your subscribers to add the route? Do you have instructions on 
your site to add and update cycle routes in OSM which could help us get more 
needed mappers?

 

Best,

Clifford

 

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM Kerry Irons mailto:irons54vor...@gmail.com> > wrote:

All,

Another "bike path that doesn't show up in OCM or OSM" in FL.  This is in 
Daytona Beach: neither Google Maps or OpenStreetMap show the new bike path at 
Bethune Point Park between Bellevue Ave. and Shady Pl.  It does show up on 
Google Satellite but when you "Get Directions" with Google Maps and choose the 
bicycle icon from the choice list, Google Maps routes you onto S. Beach St.  
The city wants USBR 1 to use this path but it's not possible to provide them 
with a route map when OSM doesn't recognize this path.  I've suggested to the 
City that they should notify Google Maps but I'm guessing the OSM community can 
put this right well before Google would respond.  

Any OSM mappers on the ground near Daytona Beach that can capture this new bike 
path in OSM?


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association
989-513-7871


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




 

-- 

@osm_washington

www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us> 

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

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

[Talk-us] FW: US Bicycle Route 1 through Daytona Beach

[Kerry Irons]

All,

Another "bike path that doesn't show up in OCM or OSM" in FL.  This is in 
Daytona Beach: neither Google Maps or OpenStreetMap show the new bike path at 
Bethune Point Park between Bellevue Ave. and Shady Pl.  It does show up on 
Google Satellite but when you "Get Directions" with Google Maps and choose the 
bicycle icon from the choice list, Google Maps routes you onto S. Beach St.  
The city wants USBR 1 to use this path but it's not possible to provide them 
with a route map when OSM doesn't recognize this path.  I've suggested to the 
City that they should notify Google Maps but I'm guessing the OSM community can 
put this right well before Google would respond.  

Any OSM mappers on the ground near Daytona Beach that can capture this new bike 
path in OSM?


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association
989-513-7871


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

Re: [Talk-us] Great Lakes Circle (Tours, bicycle) GIS-folk?

[Kerry Irons]

The Great Lakes Circle Tour (http://greatlakescircletour.org/) organization is 
the source on these signs.  They are found scattered around the great lakes, 
and we see a few Lake Michigan Circle Tour signs around Lake Michigan, but I 
sure wouldn't want to try to navigate just based on the signs.  These routes 
existed LONG before the current version of the USBRS was created.

I could be wrong, but I would be pretty certain that it is the DOT that erects 
the signs.  Letting "strangers" (e.g. an NGO) erect signs on state highways is 
"not done" in Michigan, or most other states.


Kerry

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 11:47 AM
To: talk-us ; Max Erickson ; 
Kerry Irons 
Subject: Re: Great Lakes Circle (Tours, bicycle) GIS-folk?

Thank you Max and Kerry for your posts.  I think we can agree that USBR 10 in 
Michigan's Upper Peninsula is a "real route" that happens to be unsigned, but 
it has been selected and is maintained by MDOT and is officially designated and 
cataloged by AASHTO as USBR 10.

I think what Max referred to is he doesn't see any LMCT signage here, either.  
This signage does exist (e.g. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Circle_Tour#/media/File:USRoute151NorthTerminus2.jpg
 ) though I am still unclear whether this is solely a route=road (for 
automobiles) or is that PLUS a route for cyclists as well (and there may be 
differences in actual infrastructure — that, too, remains unclear to me).  I 
have not yet received word whether there is an organization which erects these 
signs (for four or five Great Lakes?) which might or likely does "administer" 
the routes themselves, though I continue to seek out such a contact person / 
GIS "department" or organization.  Kerry, do you know anything along these 
lines?

SteveA


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

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

[Kerry Irons]

And let’s never forget College Corner, OH/IN.  It is in three counties and two 
states.  It has two different zip codes.  But really, it is two separate towns  
-College Corner OH and West College Corner IN.  And of course Delmar and Mardel 
along the Delaware/Maryland state line.  Just to keep things interesting.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Brad Neuhauser  
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 10:18 AM
To: Clifford Snow 
Cc: wambac...@posteo.de; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

 

Minnesota has around 40 cross-county cities, most of which have just a small 
portion in the second county. St. Cloud is notable for being in three counties! 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/137238

 

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:01 AM Clifford Snow mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us> > wrote:

Yes - a city can cover more than one county in the US. I'm not familiar with 
your example, but we have Bothell, WA which is in both King and Snohomish 
County. 

 

Best,

Clifford

 

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:47 AM mailto:wambac...@posteo.de> > wrote:

Hi,

are there cities (admin level 8) in the USA which  part of two counties?

see: https://wambachers-osm.website/images/osm/snaps_2018/lee.png

left: Lee County

right: DeKalb County

there are some more, but i would like to know if that is ok. In Germany this is 
impossible.

Regards

walter/Germany 

-- 

My projects:

Admin Boundaries of the World <https://wambachers-osm.website/boundaries> 
Missing Boundaries 
<https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries>
 
Emergency Map <https://wambachers-osm.website/emergency> 
Postal Code Map (Germany only) <https://wambachers-osm.website/plz> 
Fools (QA for zipcodes in Germany) <https://wambachers-osm.website/fools> 
Postcode Boundaries of Germany <https://wambachers-osm.website/pcoundaries> 

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




 

-- 

@osm_seattle

osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us> 

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] New United States Bicycle Routes!

[Kerry Irons]

Yes,

It's the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.  Apparently all state "departments" 
are officially called "cabinets."  Took me at least 2 years to get used to KYTC 
instead of KYDOT.


Kerry

-Original Message-
From: OSM Volunteer stevea  
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 7:01 PM
To: Kerry Irons ; Greg Morgan 
; talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

Sorry, I should use the abbreviation of KYTC as Kerry does, not KDOT.
SteveA


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

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

[Kerry Irons]

We had the same experience in creating a RideWithGPS map and route log for USBR 
21 in KY.  There are even places where a given road has two different 
spellings; you can tell it's the same road but the name spelling apparently is 
not agreed by the locals.  You learn to live with it.  While you would think 
that the KYTC names would be definitive, I have little confidence that that is 
true.


Kerry

-Original Message-
From: OSM Volunteer stevea  
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 6:31 PM
To: talk-us 
Cc: Greg Morgan ; Kerry Irons 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

I have completed a first draft of USBR 21 in Kentucky.  This was actually quite 
difficult as the TIGER name tags frequently do not match what highway names on 
the application from Kentucky's DOT says.  I did not change these, I'll leave 
that for "locals," but there is a great deal of work to do to change highway 
names in OSM in Kentucky, as it appears that counties, cities and KDOT change 
names (and segment breaks that make them up) quite a lot in the last 11 years 
since TIGER data were entered.

As our wiki says and as is good practice in OSM, Greg's 23 and my 21 data entry 
deserve a "double-check review" by another OSM volunteer, and while these are 
"green" in our wiki, they are a "light green" until this is completed.  Greg, 
if you email me off list and agree to double-check 21, I'll do the same to 23.  
Others are welcome, of course; email one or both of us if you are interested in 
helping.

SteveA
California

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 10:51 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea 
>  wrote:
> 
> Wow, Greg, you are quick.  Thank you!
> 
> Additionally, (a major reason I'm including Kerry in this missive), I removed 
> from OSM segments of Kentucky's USBR 23 which overlapped with ACA's 
> Transamerica Trail (TA) "Mammoth Cave Loop."  (Now largely superseded by 76 
> and 23).  These were between Highland Springs ("mid-state") and further north 
> to Tanner, where 23 now connects to 76 at a T-intersection.  There are many 
> reasons why OSM has been deprecating ACA routes in OSM:  these are 
> proprietary and likely don't belong in OSM first place, and we document in 
> our wiki that "over time, these tend to be replaced by USBRs" (among other 
> reasons, like that they can get old and drift from updates that ACA can make 
> or already has made).  Indeed, once again (as in the case of the northern 
> segment of 76 in Kentucky replacing Mammoth Caves Loop earlier when 76 was 
> approved in Kentucky), this segment of 23 100% overlaps with this ACA route, 
> so yet another significant ACA route segment now deleted from OSM (as it is 
> USBR now).
> 
> Thanks again for your work to enter this, and keep up the great entry I'm 
> guessing you are doing with USBR 21.
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:18 AM, Greg Morgan  wrote:
>> 
>> Kentucky USBR 23  is done.  
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8843677#map=10/37.4960/-85.4712
> 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Naming numbered roads as "State Route X", "Interstate X", etc.

[Kerry Irons]

=

there are some roads in Massachusetts that have actual names and route numbers 
(example: name="Grand Army of the Republic Highway"
ref="US 6"), but for reasons unknown there are street addresses like "3570 
Route 6".  Even though there is zero evidence that "Route 6" is is
any way a street name.   As far as I know this is limited to on the order of a 
half dozen roads, 1 US highway and about 5 state highways, mainly in the 
southeast and cape.

=

This is extremely common across the USA.  Post office addresses can refer to 
"road names" or highway numbers when the road is both.  The post office does 
not seem to care one way or the other, and two addresses side-by-side can have 
the road name address for one and the highway number address for the next.  
Alternatively, you can send mail to the same address number and use either the 
road name or highway number and both will be delivered by the post office with 
hardly a bat of the eye.

Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association


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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level=8 boundaries in Parker County, TX

[Kerry Irons]

There are some "famous" court cases where it needed to be determined where 
someone lived.  First the courts decided that the bedroom would determine which 
jurisdiction applied, and then it came down to where the bed was in the 
bedroom, and then finally where the person's head was when they slept.  Indeed, 
boundaries do go through buildings.


Kerry Irons

-Original Message-
From: Greg Troxel  
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:02 AM
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] admin_level=8 boundaries in Parker County, TX


Frederik Ramm  writes:

> I've recently traced a little bit of stuff in Annetta, TX. The area I 
> looked at had a lot of potential for someone interested in mapping 
> from aerial imagery (houses, tracks, driveways, parking missing; some 
> driveways tagged as highway=residential etc.) and I did what I could 
> in the small area I worked on, but there was one thing I didn't dare 
> touch and that's admin boundaries. The ones I encountered often cut 
> straight through residential buildings and I thought that can't be 
> right, but I know too little about boundaries in the US to fix any of 
> it. I am specifically talking of

Not commenting on that boundary (which others say needs help), but the logic

  admin-8 bounadry goes through houses
-->
  boundary must be wrong

is incorrect in the US.  Around me, there are multiple houses where the 
boundary line indeed goes through them (where I've seen the boundary markers, 
seen the houses, and talked to the occupants who pay taxes to two towns).


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

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

[Kerry Irons]

Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs 
depending on where you are on the street?  It clearly is a mistake on the part 
of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you have to go with 
the "un- authoritative" data from the local jurisdiction no matter what the 
street sign says.

-Original Message-
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 11:46 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

On 10/12/2017 6:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
>
> Should we (in OSM) put what the user will probably search for, the 
> correect (hypothetically) Redwil or should we put the "ground truth"
> (REED WILL) which is what the user will see if he acually ever makes 
> it to that location.

Although this has been resolved as a misreading of the site, in this case, 
correct is the ground truth.

For OSM, the data from the city is not authoritative. Ground truth is.

___
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] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

[Kerry Irons]

If all of you want to have some fun with jurisdictional boundaries, take a look 
at College Corner, OH/IN.  It is a village purposefully straddling the OH/IN 
state lines with the main street being the state line.  It has two zip codes, 
is in three counties (two in OH, one in IN) and school district issues to 
match.  It puts paid to a lot of ideas we all have about jurisdictional 
hierarchies and boundaries.  Delmar in Delaware/Maryland has similar, though 
not quite as complicated issues.  I'm sure there are other examples


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:19 PM
To: talk-us <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

I'm glad Adam brings up the topic of Gores, as I'm also unclear on how such 
"holes" get "punched into" larger (multi)polygons via tagging.  For example, I 
am "sort-of-sure" (but not positive) that in Vermont, a "gore" (or grant, 
location, purchase, surplus, strip...usually the result of "leftovers" from 
survey errors) get a tag of admin_level=4 to accurately reflect that the 
governmental administration happens via state-level bureaucracy.  Yet, like 
Adam, I also have the nagging feeling of "smells wrong," because I don't 
understand the mechanism by which such a "hole" is "punched into" the state 
like this to the exclusion of the lower-level entities (like a Town).  
("Sort-of-sure" doesn't feel good enough to me, so I seek clarification).

Yes, we use multipolygon relations to explicitly do this with outer-role 
polygon(s) and inner-role "hole" polygon(s).  But we are not using an explicit 
multipolygon relation here, we are just expecting the mechanics of OSM (like a 
renderer) to "figure this out."  Similar things happen, for example, with 
Indian Reservations "punching holes" in state and/or federal jurisdictions in 
places like Arizona and Oklahoma (to name but two).  So, too, perhaps with 
military reservations, though that is not as good an example, as I don't think 
we regularly tag those with admin_level=2 to explicitly assert 
federal/national-level jurisdiction on those, though we could or might.  An 
additional wrinkle in that example is that since the 1950s, the USA has taken 
pains to extend "full concurrent jurisdiction" on all federal enclaves such as 
military reservations, implying that BOTH admin_level=2 and admin_level=4 might 
be applied to federal enclaves such as military reservations.  Our 
US_admin_level wiki mentions this, but it is left unclear on the correct 
approach we might take.

So, in short, I am asking anybody who is able to do so to please clarify:  
without using a multipolygon relation, is it correct within OSM to tag, say a 
very large "lower 48 states" polygon with admin_level=2 AND ALSO tag 
admin_level=2 on, say, a national_park inside of it (which is itself inside of 
another polygon called a "state," with admin_level=4)?  Does "the right thing 
happen" if/as we do this, for example, would a renderer know to draw this as a 
"hole," without using a multipolygon relation?  Are semantics applied correctly 
to the map such that the national_park is federal, even though it is within a 
state?

Guidance by knowledgable people with real answers might guide us on a number of 
these situations, not just "Gores" (et al) but other kinds of "hole" tagging 
without multipolygons.  We do strive to do this correctly!

Thank you,

SteveA
California


Adam Franco writes:
On the "Gores" point: In Vermont, while these do not have any administrative 
infrastructure and are managed by the State, they *are* surveyed and named 
places with defined borders (shared with their surrounding Towns). As such it 
likely makes sense to preserve them as multipolygons each with their own name 
and detail tags. Since these areas are exclusive of Town/City areas, it might 
make sense to give them the same admin_level even though the mechanisms of 
administration are different.
They aren't States themselves, so a border=administrative,admin_level=4
smells wrong. I can't speak to the situation in Maine.




___
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] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

[Kerry Irons]

Center lane is a left turn only lane.  If the space to the side of the solid 
white lines is a bike lane, then this street may have be subject to a “road 
diet” in which a 4 lane street is reduced to two travel lanes, a turn lane, and 
two bike lanes.  Otherwise the street was constructed in that configuration.

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:21 AM
To: Horea Meleg 
Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

 

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
access:lanes:both_ways=no

 

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg  > wrote:

Hello all,

Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859): 



Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?

Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions) 



or have only 2, one for each direction?



 

Thank you,

Horea Meleg


___
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] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Kerry Irons]

Not to cloud this discussion, but be aware that at least some states refer to 
“county trunk” roads at the county level.  Near as I can tell that simply means 
“major” vs. “minor” roads at the county level without rigid criteria to define 
them.  Looking at the US NHS roads for my area, it seems that the choices to 
include a given highway in the NHS is fairly arbitrary.  There may have been 
traffic counts included in the decision but that would have been only part of 
the criteria – highways in low-population areas are part of the NHS while much 
heavier traffic highways in more densely populated areas are not.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Bill Ricker [mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com>
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

 

 

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com 
<mailto:vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:

You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a web page 
of the Federal Highway Administration 

​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are definitively 
not trunk roads.

Just two examples in Arizona:

 

I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely settled area 
in EU or NY.
If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude there 
are few trunk roads outside of metropolises. 

Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving greatly 
exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas" signs still 
live, this is a major road. 

US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . . 

Wikipedia says [0]

The National Highway System (NHS) is a network of strategic  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway> highways within the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> United States, including the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System> Interstate Highway 
System and other roads serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, 
railway stations,  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport> pipeline 
terminals and other strategic transport facilities. Altogether, it constitutes 
the largest highway system in the world.

Individual  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state> states are encouraged to 
focus federal funds on improving the efficiency and safety of this network. The 
roads within the system were identified by the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Transportation> 
United States Department of Transportation in cooperation with the states, 
local officials, and  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_planning_organization> metropolitan 
planning organizations and approved by the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress> United States Congress 
in 1995.

 

So being on this list should assure the road is among the best maintained.

Oh, because we don't have green A signage on the NHS designated routes, and we 
only map what is physically there ? 
The Mapillary photos show modern video billboards. If the advertisers recognize 
it as a trunk worth their time, we can too.

Being better maintained or wider than other in the greater area is physical.

 

Richard's comment 

   "(FWIW, the current distinction between highway=trunk and highway=primary in
the US seems so arbitrary that I actually render them both the same for 
cycle.travel <http://cycle.travel> )" 

suggests forcefully that our current  rule for US is NOT working. 

Looking at states i'm more familiar with than AZ, Massachusetts [1] and Maine 
[2] , these NHS roads are pretty much what the locals think of as the main 
connections between cities/regions, which is a reasonable "human" translation 
of "trunk".  

I do see some "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials" that are feeders to the presumed 
trunks, unclear if they deserve trunk status. I also see some interesting 
omissions, US20, MA30, MA9 are not included end to end, but only selectively.  
But if that means federal funding is concentrated on portions of US20 that are 
in NHS at expense of those not, then they will be physically different despite 
same signage.

This proposal is better than what we have now -- in rural areas at least .

 

( ​I love that FHWA has these maps posted publicly. 35 years ago i produced a 
similar state-and-city atlas for a DOT rail safety office ​... with a plotter 
and color Xerox[tm] copier.  Lost to history.
personal to Volker - thanks for pointing these out to me ! )




[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) 
​[1] 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/massachusetts/ma_massachusetts.pdf​

​[2] 
http://www.fhwa.d

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 108, Issue 18

[Kerry Irons]

As a general comment, postal addresses and local addresses do not have to be 
the same and “often” are not.  Often in quotes because while it is not common 
to have different addresses (city or town name) it certainly is not unusual.  
Rural locations can sometimes have different zip codes but the same location 
name or the same zip code and different location names.  It’s just how the USPS 
does it.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Valerie Anderson [mailto:vale...@andersongeospatial.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:12 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 108, Issue 18

 

Hello talk-us!

 

This is the area in question: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/28.2929/-81.2331

 

I'm wondering why this building that I input into OSM: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/405322404 thinks that it's in New Eden 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/154079502) and not Narcoossee 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/154104172). New Eden and Narcoossee are two 
nearby hamlets (unincorporated cities). The mailing address of the building is 
in Saint Cloud, the closest incorporated city to the building that's in the 
same county. I entered the tag addr:hamlet=Narcoossee yet when you search for 
the address in the search bar it says Building 2886, Absher Road, New Eden, 
Osceola County, Florida 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=2886%20absher%20rd#map=20/28.33281/-81.19943
 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=2886%20absher%20rd#map=20/28.33281/-81.19943=H>
 =H).

 

Why?

 

Thanks,

 

Val

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

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Correct.  I’ll send the MDDOT map to Steve All.  Not sure what happened that 
the full route didn’t get there, but it’s a feature of OSM that people find 
these things and they get fixed!

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Brad Neuhauser [mailto:brad.neuhau...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:10 AM
To: Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com>
Cc: Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com>; OSM Volunteer stevea 
<stevea...@softworkers.com>; Wade <wade.cr...@comcast.net>; FTA/Ethan 
<eman...@hotmail.com>; Phil! Gold <phi...@pobox.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com 
<mailto:irons54vor...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The NB route uses Keep Tryst Rd. west from the path to connect with US 340 for 
about 1,500 ft. headed east and then onto the ramp to SR 67.  The SB route 
takes the right hand ramp from the southern end of SR 67 onto US 340 for about 
500 ft. and then right onto Keep Tryst Rd. and then onto the path.  The route 
uses the towpath, not Sandy Hook Rd.

 

So, where they split, it looks like the NB route isn't tagged at all, just the 
SB route.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Recognize that the small sign is not a USBR sign.  In your first link I could 
find no bike route sign unless it is that sign way off in the distance that I 
can’t make out.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Elliott Plack [mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com>; OSM Volunteer stevea 
<stevea...@softworkers.com>
Cc: FTA/Ethan <eman...@hotmail.com>; Wade <wade.cr...@comcast.net>; Phil! Gold 
<phi...@pobox.com>; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so you 
can see some of the bike signage. 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo 

 

This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS: 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo

 

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com 
<mailto:irons54vor...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.  Currently 
just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both at the state 
and local (non state highway) level.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com 
<mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com <mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com <mailto:irons54vor...@gmail.com> >; 
FTA/Ethan <eman...@hotmail.com <mailto:eman...@hotmail.com> >; Wade 
<wade.cr...@comcast.net <mailto:wade.cr...@comcast.net> >; Phil! Gold 
<phi...@pobox.com <mailto:phi...@pobox.com> >; talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
<mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com <mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance to 
observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is 
effectively a motorway for travel.

 

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added 
copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, 
Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!

 

There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that I 
observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had a 
green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst Rd / 
Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the bicycles 
must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference. There is a 
Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part that is USBR 11.

 

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” 
but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state 
DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) 
by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to 
do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more 
grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) 
sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to 
sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.

 

For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the 
cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this condition.

 

Thank you, thank you.

 

Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the westbound is 
tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection along the eastbound 
portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is probably not enough to call 
the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

 

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it 
interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better 
tagged.

 

Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the Potomac 
River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access the bridge 
that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling routers, like OSRM 
or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed there provided they 
dismount (per signage).

 

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it 
is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These 
things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of 
bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a 
router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a 
lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” 
semio

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

[Kerry Irons]

Just to echo Steve’s comment on signs: encouraged but not required.  Currently 
just under 18% of the USBRS is signed.  Budget is the issue, both at the state 
and local (non state highway) level.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com>
Cc: Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com>; FTA/Ethan <eman...@hotmail.com>; 
Wade <wade.cr...@comcast.net>; Phil! Gold <phi...@pobox.com>; 
talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

 

Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com <mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com> > wrote:





Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance to 
observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is 
effectively a motorway for travel.

 

I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added 
copious tags that it still needed additional editing.  >1.5 years later, 
Elliott submits nice, solid work after a field trip.  Well, all right!





There is no sign or specific indication of USBR 11 anywhere out there that I 
observed. What I did see was that the eastbound carriageway of US 340 had a 
green sign indicating that it was a bicycle route between the Keep Tryst Rd / 
Valley Rd intersection, and Exit 2, which had a sign indicating the bicycles 
must exit. The "Bike Route" signs did not have a number reference. There is a 
Bike Route sign on the exit to MD 67 as well, which is the part that is USBR 11.

 

Kerry might remind everybody that signage is optional (I would say “encouraged” 
but I don’t think that is official) on the USBRS.  The route exists by state 
DOT declaration and “acceptance” into the national (non) network (called USBRS) 
by AASHTO.  Signs cost money and effort to erect:  sometimes there is budget to 
do so and the state DOT finds a way to erect signs, sometimes signage is a more 
grass-roots effort (fundraising, sign-raising…) than it is state (DOT) 
sanctioned or funded.  A Bike Route sign is a legal, MUTCD-acceptable way to 
sign here but I think we all agree the M1-9 sign (USBR 11) would be preferred.





For the sections of US 340 where cyclists are allowed, I added the 
cycleway:right=shoulder tag. I also fixed any FIXMEs related to this condition.

 

Thank you, thank you.





Curiously, the eastbound carriageway is tagged as trunk, while the westbound is 
tagged motorway. While there is a single grade intersection along the eastbound 
portion (at Keep Tryst Rd), I think that this is probably not enough to call 
the entire section trunk. Thoughts on that?

 

You did the field trip!  The whole area around Keep Tryst Road and how it 
interfaces with AT and bicycles is complicated, and now seems much better 
tagged.





Finally, I also improved the routing of USBR 11 where it crosses the Potomac 
River on a shared-use rail bridge. There is a staircase to access the bridge 
that I added the steps tag too. I am not sure how bicycling routers, like OSRM 
or Strava will handle steps, but cyclists are allowed there provided they 
dismount (per signage).

 

There is also a lcm (local cycleway network) around here with a staircase, it 
is near the Santa Cruz Boardwalk at the mouth of the San Lorenzo River.  These 
things can get complicated, but I believe with the proper tagging of 
bicycle=dismount (to walk up or down stairs carrying your bicycle) that a 
router should be able to figure that out.  Especially if is part of a 
lcn/rcn/ncn.  Still, I wouldn’t mind a bicycle router showing “special” 
semiotics here (yellow or hatching or something like that).





I have mapped my observations with this changeset: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39027403

 

Deeply appreciated.  This tagging and routing were a little sticky here, and 
now are much better.

 

SteveA

California

USBRS WikiProject coordinator

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

[Kerry Irons]

As a general rule, bicycles are prohibited from freeways in the US east of
the Mississippi and allowed on rural freeways in the west.  Of course this
is a very broad definition and only a starting point for understanding.  The
key point is that people in the east often assume that bicycles are never
allowed on freeways because they have never seen it, while people in the
west assume that bicycles are allowed unless specifically prohibited.  This
results in confusion, to say the least.  

 

To deal with this you need to have the understanding of the general
principles and then you have to actually know the local conditions.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: John F. Eldredge [mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:43 AM
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

 

By contrast, I am not aware of any Interstate highways in the southeast USA
that allow bicycles. From my experience, every entrance ramp has signs
forbidding non-motorized traffic and mopeds.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

On January 11, 2015 8:10:04 PM stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

I do not agree:  again, I find no evidence (from the Oregon DOT map) that
bicycles are explicitly designated legal on I-5.  It may be the case that
explicit statute specifies bicycles are allowed on I-5 in Oregon, but this
map does not explicitly do so.  Again, please note that no specific bike
routes are designated on that map, either.  It simply displays some
highways as Interstates and some highways as containing wide shoulders or
narrow shoulders.  While not complaining about Oregon's DOT helping
bicyclists better understand where they might or might not ride a bicycle in
that state, I characterize these map data as early or underdeveloped
w.r.t. helpful bicycle routing by a DOT.


Oregon and Washington allow all modes on all routes unless otherwise posted.
They have to explicitly sign exclusions, and they do.  Here's the list for
Oregon

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/freeway_ban.pdf

 

And Washington:

 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm

 

My previous post was California centric, going too far assuming for other
states.  (And fifty-at-a-time only in certain circumstances).

 

A starting place (properly placed in the locus of each state, with
perspective as a router might parse logic and build a routing set...) is the
following:

 

For 100% of ways with tag highway, set bicycle legality_status = legal.
(This keeps everything still in the running.)  Now, apply a per-state rule
(could be a table lookup, could be a smarter data record):

 

With both Washington and Oregon:

exclude from our data set ways where helpful OSMers have tagged
bicycle=no

 

With California:

exclude from our data set ways tagged highway=motorway,

add to the set cycleways and highways tagged bicycle=yes.

 

We are right in the middle of fifty ways of calculating a set.  Those
target objects might be elements of a bicycle route.  As we get the tags
right (critical, on the data and at the bottom) we must also treat the
rules of what we seek from those data as critical, too (from the top, down).
It's reaching across and shaking hands with a protocol, or a stack of
protocols.  It's data, syntax and semantics.  When the sentence is
grammatical (tags are correct for a parser), it clicks into place with the
correct answer (renders as we wish).

 

For the most part, we get it right.  But we do need to understand the whole
stack of what we do every once in a while, and pointing out data in
California, treat like this, data in Oregon, Washington..., treat like
that... is helpful to remember.  Can we get to a place where everybody can
do things (tag) just right for them and have it always work (render),
everywhere every time?  M, not without documentation and perhaps
conversations like this.

 

This is why documenting what we do and how we do it (and referring to the
documentation, and trying to apply it strictly, unless it breaks, then
perhaps talk about it and even improve it...) is so important.

 

Listen, build, improve, repeat.  Thank you (Paul, for your specific answer,
as well as others for participating).

 

SteveA

California

___
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] Bike route relation issues

[Kerry Irons]

Did you leave our the word “not” from the last sentence?

 

Kerry

 

 



Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map [1]. I5 is included in 
any of their approved routes. 

Clifford


 

-- 

@osm_seattle

osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

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

Re: [Talk-us] RE; Bike route relation issues

[Kerry Irons]

Agree that the GD MTB route is a “private route” in that you need to obtain a 
map to figure out what the route is.  Whether OSM wants to document private 
routes seems to be an open question.

 

While Adventure Cycling is proud of the routes it has developed we do not claim 
them as “national routes” any more than a given year’s RAGBRAI cross-Iowa route 
deserves that recognition (RAGBRAI changes its route every year to include 
different parts of Iowa).  This applies to dozens of other major routes and 
cross state rides in the US.  None of them are signed and they often change 
from year to year.  The Great Divide also spends a fair amount of its time on 
singletrack paths.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:53 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] RE; Bike route relation issues

 

 

Regarding

 


  the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159



I have three comments:

1) The first one is that as far as I know it is not signposted, so it should 
not be in OSM as a relation. 

Only if the ACA have plans to put signs up, it could became a proposed route 
(state=proposed).

OSM is not the place to put unsigned routes, even if they are very important. 
Obviously this issue is for Kerry Irons to answer, as its one of their routes

2) if it is to be in OSM it is a national route (ncn)

3) if it is a Mountain bike Route by name, I suppose it is also in reality, 
so most likely it would be route=mtb (Kerry to decide)

Obviously it would be a pity to lose all the work Jimmy FL has put in it, but 
OSM should not become the repository of private routes.

Volker

Padova/Italy

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

[Kerry Irons]

The key question here, it seems to me, is whether there is any “official” body 
that claims these sections of I-5 to be a bicycle route.  That might include 
bike clubs if indeed OSM decides to include “private routes” in the data base.  
I am not aware if any group that would suggest I-5 for a bike route in Oregon.  
If that is the case then it appears that this is simply someone claiming it to 
be a bike route by personal fiat.  That opens the door to a discussion had last 
year about people putting personal opinion into OSM and designating it as a 
bicycle route.  This seems to me to be a path to chaos but it is up to the OSM 
community to make that determination.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:35 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

 

Regarding the I-5 bicycle route, I looked a bit closer at this. In fact the 
route is most of the time on the I-5, but at the northern end in Portland it 
actually shows in detail the way cyclists need to take to avoid the no-cycles 
bit of the I-5 (see https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8 
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8msa=0z=10hl=enmid=zF9NcSQ7rxPw.kenRJL5pecto
 msa=0z=10hl=enmid=zF9NcSQ7rxPw.kenRJL5pecto). In that sense the relation 
may make sense at its northern end, provided there is signposting on it. 
Otherwise no. Also there is no name in the relation and no reference to any web 
page or other information.

Volker

Padova, Italy

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

[Kerry Irons]

By the logic that I-5 in Oregon is tagged as a bike route, then all roads in 
the US that don't prohibit bicycles should be tagged likewise.  Obviously that 
logic is incorrect.  There is no body, official or otherwise, that calls I-5 
in Oregon a bike route.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: James Umbanhowar [mailto:jumba...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:28 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer and 
tagging for the router ;).  To play a little bit of devil's advocate, gravel 
roads are eminently bikeable to many non-mountain bikes.  Bike manufacturers 
have come out with gravel grinder style bikes which are really just old style 
road bikes with wide tires. There is fast becoming a continuum from mountain 
bike to road racing bike in terms of their ability to handle different types of 
road conditions

My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved (or 
tracks as many already are). 

The I-5 thing seems strange.  That is not a separate bike route but rather an 
interstate highway that allows bicycles.  bicycle=yes on all the component ways 
should be sufficient.

James

On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 14:08 +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: 
 Hi all,
 
 I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and 
 would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them.
 
 One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159
 
 The other is I-5 in Oregon:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485
 
 Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn.
 
 In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually 
 expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and 
 therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely 
 Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider.
 
 I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged 
 elsewhere in the world), but the original editor has since changed it 
 back with a plaintive changeset comment in
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 .
 
 The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per 
 se, it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm 
 not too worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the 
 constituent ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway.
 
 But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways 
 are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are 
 fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike 
 routing (which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for 
 all apart from MTB-ers.
 
 Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator 
 seems hostile, perhaps for prominence on OpenCycleMap issues. (I've 
 messaged him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be 
 another commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of.
 
 What does the community think?
 
 cheers
 Richard
 
 ___
 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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Prima Facie Speed Limits

[Kerry Irons]

Signage standards are contained in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices).  These are standards, not absolute requirements, but you will find 
them followed pretty closely because traffic engineers don’t like having to 
explain why they have not complied with standards.  Several states have their 
own version of the MUTCD, usually with either a few additions to the MUTCD or 
even by reducing the options of signage.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Greg Morgan [mailto:dr.kludge...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:22 AM
To: stevea
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prima Facie Speed Limits

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:31 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

I wonder if 15 mph in a school zone and 25 mph in a residential area are some 
sort of federal standard?  The source tag might be useful but not much 
different than other states.

 

The federal government doesn't have anything to say about speed limits (in 
states), as the US Constitution leaves such things to the states.  

 

I was thinking more like a stop sign is red and eight sided.  A traffic 
engineer told me that there is a federal standard governing how intersections 
are marked, etc.

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

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

[Kerry Irons]

Just a point of clarification for everyone:  AASHTO does not choose US
Bicycle Routes.  The state Departments of Transportation develop the routes,
typically in cooperation with bicycle advocacy groups and with the specific
agreement of local road agencies where the route is not on state controlled
roads, streets or trails.  The DOT submits a map and turn-by-turn
instructions as part of their application to AASHTO.  AASHTO makes sure that
the proposed route number is appropriate within the national USBR corridor
plan but does NOT choose the roads, streets, or trails.

Choices of routes are influenced by a number of factors, and sometimes the
route that most bicyclists agree would be the best is not chosen due to
local road agency concerns.  Likewise a route that many bicyclists would not
prefer is used because it connects other portions of the route that have
highly desirable features.  Every route is a compromise between directness,
road quality, scenic features, traffic density, access to amenities, etc.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:04 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers

Simon Poole writes:
  Am 02.06.2014 06:28, schrieb Russ Nelson:
   . 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??
  
  While not quite what you intended,

No, that's exactly what I intended. I think that nobody would be complaining
if I did the above. How, then, does it suddenly become an import if I skip
the step where I bicycled the portion of the route I am entering? I cannot
see how it does.

I'm not arguing about the quality of the route chosen by AASHTO. Maybe they
did a good job, maybe they didn't. I'm saying that the negative
characteristics of an import are completely absent from this project:
   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.

If an import is completely signed in every case, that doesn't solve any of
the problems caused by an import.

-- 
--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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

[Kerry Irons]

Peter,

 

Yes, Magnificent Mile.  It's been a few years!

 

I don't have much argument with most of what you say.  I was reacting to
what I perceived as comments from some that what the locals call it should
get priority with regards shields.  It should be whatever the DOT has
designated the road as (see the mile markers when installed).

 

However there are many MAJOR roads with dual or more routes on them.  A
significant mid-west US example is I-80/I-90 from Elyria, OH to Gary, IN.
For OSM to display only one of those route numbers in its shields is not, in
my opinion, user friendly for map readers.  And as I noted, it appears
there is a problem with OSM and dual/multiple route tags in at least some
areas: no shields show for many miles where the dual routes exist.

 

Yes the MUTCD is a guide to what to hang on a sign post or overhead gantry
rather than a mapper's guide, but the use of multiple route signs on a
single pole tells you that the DOTs want us to know all the route numbers of
a given stretch of pavement.  The MapQuest Open layer of OSM does the same
and for me at least, this does not represent shield clutter.

 

 

Kerry

 

 

From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 2:53 PM
To: Kerry Irons
Cc: Tod Fitch; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

 

Kerry,

 

Your reference is to The Magnificent Mile, a hyped up name for Michigan
Avenue, Chicago's main shopping street.  I happen to be sitting on a plane
to Chicago right now and the lady sitting next to me got your meaning
immediately. Check out http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/153654226

 

You say that map users want to see all the route numbers on a given piece
of pavement, not just the ... principal route.  Yet there are many
different types of map user, each with different needs and preferences.  I
had said We need a way of capturing [the principal route designator] in OSM
for use in nav systems and info systems, as well as (perhaps) for ridding
simple maps of route shield clutter.

 

Note my (perhaps) and simple maps.  I would never suggest that OSM
mappers want to be rid of what I risked calling route shield clutter.  But
my job is to design map-based info systems for use by as many people as
possible, and this experience tells me that multiple route designators tend
to confuse the average user. My plea is that mappers ensure that the
principal route designation (which every numbered highway has, at least in
the eyes of police and DOTs) comes first in the way ref tag, so that simple
maps, nav systems and info systems can be created that say it as briefly as
possible.  That way, you can have your everything maps and I can have my
relatively simple info systems for ordinary folks to use.

 

As a professional traffic engineer I know MUTCD moderately well.  The Feds
and AASHTO do a good job of imposing some degree of consistency on the 50
banana republics (sorry, the US states). ;)   But MUTCD is not written as a
mapping tool, nor as a design document for nav systems or traffic info
systems.  It's a useful guide to what we traffic engineers are supposed to
hang on poles and gantries. In OSM, the community decides what to map, and
my hope is to influence mappers to meet the diverse needs of many different
user groups.

 

Later today I'll be picking up my rental car from O'Hare and (over the
holiday) driving the Kennedy, the Eden, and the Dan Ryan, etc.  Like you,
I'm a relative stranger to Chicago, and I'd prefer to know them as I-90 and
I-94.  This is why we (if Castle Rock were the Illinois 511 contractor)
would reference a crash on the Dan Ryan as On I-90 (Dan Ryan Expressway)
between Exit 53 (Canalport Avenue) and Exit 52 (Roosevelt Road) look out for
a crash ...  We try to satisfy both the locals and the visitors.  Chicago's
radio stations have different goals. But if I didn't mention Dan Ryan,
many of the locals would say I-90? What is that?

 

It happens that Chicago's freeways are not cluttered with rubbish numbers
(thank you Shawn Quinn; not my words).  Great job, I-DOT!   US 41 has stayed
on Lakeshore Drive, where it belongs.  

 

Kerry, our aims are not incompatible.  I'm happy to defend the way ref tags
too.  It had been suggested that we might only need relation ref tags. It is
true that there is much duplication.  My point is that way ref tags tell us
the priority order of the shields, and that we can get this no other way.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Kerry Irons irons54vor...@gmail.com
wrote:

Peter,

 

The Miracle Mile is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe it
is a reference for a section of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive (also US 41).
Other towns have used this reference to their business district.  Note the
reference in Billy Joel's It's Still Rock

Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

[Kerry Irons]

There is a problem with this approach in that the locals might describe it
one way and visitors, with no local knowledge, will stick with route
numbers.  When I visit Chicago I get confused by traffic radio because I
don't know the freeway names but I have no trouble navigating by map as long
as the route numbers are shown on the map.  Highway signage leans much more
heavily toward route numbers than names, and often show the multiple route
numbers.  This is particularly key when someone is following a route number
to some more distant destination.  When a map doesn't indicate that there
are multiple routes on the same piece of pavement it can be confusing to
outsiders trying to navigate through an area.


Kerry Irons

-Original Message-
From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:45 PM
To: Eric Fischer
Cc: Martijn van Exel; Richard Welty; OSM US Talk
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

Eric

Perhaps it would be ok still to code these few exceptions that are known
equally by two route designators as US 1;US 9 in NJ or US 12;US 18 in
WI, but to simplify the vast majority of routes where the secondary banding
is less important?   My aim is to announce traffic problems the way the
locals do it.  If they call it the 1-9 or the 12-18, that's fine with me. We
could also add that as an alias (an OSM name) if it's widespread.  

As you say, for the INDOT 511 system (another of my concerns), on I 465 we
could safely skip US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, IN 67, US 421, etc.  It could
go either way on I 465;I 74 across the south side of the Indie Beltway,
depending on local practices.  The nice thing about this proposal is that
the exceptions can still be allowed in the rare cases where they apply.  

I find that listening to radio station traffic messages is a great way to
discover how people name roads.  Here in Portland, OR, I 84 between I 5 and
I 205 is invariably called the Banfield or Banfield Expressway by OPB,
etc.  It is never, ever called  US 30 or I 84;US 30 (Banfield
Expressway)

Peter





On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eric Fischer e...@pobox.com wrote:
This would match how people usually talk about things like I-465 around
Indianapolis, ignoring all the other routes that are also routed along it,
but it doesn't work quite so well when there are co-signed routes that
persist for long distances where people refer to the paired name. I think
Highway 1-9 in New Jersey, which is both US 1 and US 9, is the main example,
but Highway 12-18 in Madison, WI (US 12 and US 18) also comes to mind.

Eric

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Peter Davies peter.dav...@crc-corp.com
wrote:
A further thought in favor of using the way ref tag simply to indicate the
principal route designator, leaving any multi-banded secondary routes that
share the way to be defined only in the relations, is that we would be
making the US more consistent with road numbering and mapping practices in
other countries.  

In the UK, for example, multi-banding does not occur because the
Department of Transport allows numbered roads to have breaks (gaps) where
they follow other routes.  For example, the M62 from Liverpool to Leeds and
Hull no longer exists across the Manchester M60 Ring Motorway section.
 Drivers follow M62 from Liverpool, then take the Manchester Ring Road M60,
and then pick up the M62 again across the Pennines to Leeds and Hull.  In a
similar example on the primary route system, the A49 joins with the A5
around the Shrewsbury bypass, and then separates and strikes off north again
after a few miles.  This approach is universal in the UK, and is also
standard practice in many other countries.

In the UK and elsewhere, the shared section is identified by a single
principal route designator.  Important secondary UK designations can be
shown on green primary route signs, e.g., Oswestry A5; Leominster (A49).
 This is interpreted as A5 changing to A49 for Leominster.  On UK maps of
all kinds, only A5 is marked on the common section. Thus, OSM currently tags
ways on the common section simply with ref A5.  We could do the same here in
the US if we swapped out US 202;ME 11;ME 17;ME 100 for just US 202 in the
way ref.  (As it happens, only US 202 IS currently coded on Western Avenue
in Augusta, and perhaps we should leave it that way?)

I believe that US state DOT practices of multi-banding might be made more
user friendly if we could focus on the principal designated route in the
way ref tag.  It doesn't really help many drivers to know that I 80 in parts
of Wyoming is also US 30.  My thoughts are that the Interstate system
rightly swamps out noise from older transcontinental routes that have
little travel significance in the 21st century.  It could be that these
secondary sign shields are an unwarranted expense that may gradually fade
away.  But those who still want to show secondary

Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

[Kerry Irons]

All,

 

If you look at the guidance in the US from FHWA and the MUTCD, all route
numbers are to used in signage.  You never know who is using a given piece
of pavement by following which route number.  Just because the locals might
call it the Miracle Mile doesn't mean that is the appropriate choice for
shield priority.

 

 

Kerry

 

From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM
To: Tod Fitch
Cc: Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

 

Tod,

 

I found a common stretch of CA 108 and CA 120 between Oakdale and Yosemite
Junction in Tuolumne County.  I'm not sure if that's the double-banded
section you mention.

 

As Eric Fischer said, there are some ways that carry two approximately equal
routes, and my suggestion was that they would both still feature in the way
ref tags, in this case CA 108;CA 120 (which is in fact what OSM currently
has for these ways).  I agree that there is no obvious precedence order in
this case other than highest system, lowest number (which is again what
OSM has at present).

 

My suggestion was (and is) that if we need to have multiple refs, because
two or more routes are about equal, the way refs be listed in shield
posting order, starting with the top or left-most shield.  Without going
there, we won't know if that is CA 108 or CA 120, or whether it varies.
Since both are about equal it probably doesn't matter, because (as you say)
both should probably be mentioned.  

 

My interest was more in what Shawn Quinn calls rubbish numbers, such as US
and state route refs multi-banded on an interstate.  I think he argues that
we need them all.  I don't think that's in doubt, either.  But do we need
them all to be listed in every way ref, or would it be sufficient to have
them in the relation refs, with the first listed shield(s) emphasized in the
way refs?

 

I think the answer is already emerging.  Way ref tags with complete lists of
overlapping secondary route designators are here to stay.  Personally I'm
happy about this so long as the first signed route number(s), starting from
the top and/or left of the direction signs and route confirmation signs,
come first in the way ref lists (as they usually do in OSM already).  So, I
465 should be listed before US 31, or IN 67, say, as it's given greater
precedence in the signing.  

 

In other words, most people probably think that Interstate 465 is Interstate
465, and not US 31 or IN 67.  So we should list it first (as we almost
always do).  Sound fair?

 

Peter

 

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:

On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote:





Kerry

 

snip

 

It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary designators
in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is presented first.
We can easily ignore the less important numbers.  But without a way ref
(i.e., using only relation refs, as has been suggested) we have no way of
knowing what is the most common route designator for that specific way.

 

Peter

 

There may be no most common route designator. A semi-local example: If I
am directing you east over Sonora Pass I'll tell you to go east on CA 108.
If I direct you to Yosemite I'll tell you to go east on CA 120. But for a
number of miles they are the same road with dual signage with no obvious
method of tell which one is the most common designator.

 

(You can probably tell what the road officially is by looking at the very
cryptic and hard to read version of a mile/information posts that CalTrans
uses but most motorists never notice them and if they do they are very
difficult to read or decipher without stopping.)

 

Some of your examples are in areas I am not familiar with. But in both the
San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles there are named freeways. I notice
that in the Bay Area the name is almost never used whereas in LA it seems
both are used with the name being more common. In either case I'd expect the
name key to specify the name and the ref to specify the route number. How
you decide that a local would be more likely to use the name (LA) or the ref
(SF) I haven't the fainted idea.

 

Tod

 

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