Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
On 2014-06-03 11:46, Simon Poole wrote: Am 03.06.2014 17:48, schrieb Mike N: Further the area not being surveyed implies that all the value add that we can offer a cyclist is not there (surface, lanes, shoulders etc). Blocking bike routes until everything is surveyed is not realistic - we'd need to map every parking spot with a potential car door zone, every storm drain that may cause a road hazard, as well as every road width in addition to the surface, lanes and shoulders. Blocking bike routes only ensures that TIGER deserts remain as deserts for any number of years until someone randomly happens to take interest, if ever. Having a bike route will motivate people to start with armchair improvements and follow with incremental improvements to the roads that the bike route cover. I was looking at this the other way around: these routes are a good opportunity to motivate people out there and get them to survey the length of the route in person. Instead of yet another armchair mapping exercise. Naturally not requiring everything to be perfect, but at least it would be better than pure armchair mapping and more aligned with why bicycle routes exist in the first place. The handful of approved routes I looked at don't seem to be particularly long (aka at most couple of 100 miles) and could easily be surveyed by a dozen or two mappers without undue effort and completed in the upcoming months. And provide some show casing of why OSM is better, instead of worse. Simon Naturally, we should emphasize quality coverage of the route infrastructure (trails, roads, parking). Signage is almost never the interesting thing about a bike route. To a cyclist, a sign may just be another landmark like a water tower or power line. Yet routes are absolutely necessary to make sense of the very fragmented bike infrastructure in this country. Without USBRs and the occasional state bike route, our cycle map would be like the uninterrupted sea of highway=residential just after the TIGER import. Route relations don't necessarily indicate bikeability anyways. Bikeability is indicated by the surface tag and so on. Route relations indicate notability. By the way, even if I've armchair tagged an USBR in Ohio, many of the state's trails have already been ground surveyed by OSM mappers. That's how I got any trails mapped way back before Bing imagery came along. So it isn't pure armchair mapping in the first place. If anyone's interested in double-checking our work, USBR 50 in Ohio is 313.3 miles long. The western half mostly follows rail trails, so it's very flat and straight. The other half, not so much. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Hi, On 06/03/2014 02:38 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: If you see something, map something I think one of the bones of contention here was that there's not really anything to *see* that could be mapped. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
On 2014-06-02 13:24, Simon Poole wrote: @stevea you would substantially help your cause if the route data was available for inspection, best a public source from where it could be obtained. Here are the special committee minutes approving the routes (along with various U.S. route modifications): http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20May%2029%202014.docx Each USBR approval links to an application by a state DOT containing a full route log, to wit: USBR 1 (MA): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1167 USBR 10 (WA): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1184 USBR 36 (IL): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1185 USBR 37 (IL): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1186 USBR 50 (DC): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1188 USBR 50 (OH): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1176 -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Am 03.06.2014 10:42, schrieb Minh Nguyen: On 2014-06-02 13:24, Simon Poole wrote: @stevea you would substantially help your cause if the route data was available for inspection, best a public source from where it could be obtained. Here are the special committee minutes approving the routes (along with various U.S. route modifications): http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20May%2029%202014.docx Each USBR approval links to an application by a state DOT containing a full route log, to wit: USBR 1 (MA): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1167 USBR 10 (WA): http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=ItemID=1184 Thanks. Route USBR 10 nicely illustrates my point about GIGO. It starts of in untouched TIGER country and continues. Implying that nothing has been surveyed along the route, clearly requiring large amounts of clean up before even thinking about adding the roads to a route relation (well at least if you don't want the relation to break n-times when somebody actually does the clean up). Further the area not being surveyed implies that all the value add that we can offer a cyclist is not there (surface, lanes, shoulders etc). Simon ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Simon Poole writes: Route USBR 10 nicely illustrates my point about GIGO. It starts of in untouched TIGER country and continues. Best way to get something mapped is to draw attention to it. That's what Steve is trying to do. Can we move on now, and stop calling this an import? Permissionless innovation -- that's what OSM is all about. If you see something, map something (to abuse New York City's supposedly trademarked If you see something, say something phrase). Stop with the stop energy already! -- --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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Stop with the stop energy already! +1 Permissionless innovation -- that's what OSM is all about. Right. This is a totally weird, overstepping of authority, unnecessary discussion. There's nothing wrong or damaging happening here. In fact, some very conscientious efforts to improve OSM. I only read that it perhaps could be improved even more. Well that's what a wiki is about right? Step by step. I think we've exhausted the discussion on talk-us. If there is really something here the DWG thinks they need to pursue, I'm going to bring it to attention of the OSM Management Team for discussion. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:40 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Simon Poole writes: Route USBR 10 nicely illustrates my point about GIGO. It starts of in untouched TIGER country and continues. Best way to get something mapped is to draw attention to it. That's what Steve is trying to do. Can we move on now, and stop calling this an import? Permissionless innovation -- that's what OSM is all about. If you see something, map something (to abuse New York City's supposedly trademarked If you see something, say something phrase). Stop with the stop energy already! -- --my blog is at http://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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
On 6/3/2014 5:34 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Route USBR 10 nicely illustrates my point about GIGO. It starts of in untouched TIGER country and continues. Implying that nothing has been surveyed along the route, clearly requiring large amounts of clean up before even thinking about adding the roads to a route relation (well at least if you don't want the relation to break n-times when somebody actually does the clean up). As a counterpoint to GIGO: the only clean road at the start point is part of the preliminary bike route. Cleanup is a known science - many US and state route relations were added before a geometry review. Bike routes would break no more than existing routes that are being cleaned up by MapRoulette. Further the area not being surveyed implies that all the value add that we can offer a cyclist is not there (surface, lanes, shoulders etc). Blocking bike routes until everything is surveyed is not realistic - we'd need to map every parking spot with a potential car door zone, every storm drain that may cause a road hazard, as well as every road width in addition to the surface, lanes and shoulders. Blocking bike routes only ensures that TIGER deserts remain as deserts for any number of years until someone randomly happens to take interest, if ever. Having a bike route will motivate people to start with armchair improvements and follow with incremental improvements to the roads that the bike route cover. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Martijn van Exel writes: No more of this please. I'd place this thread under moderation if I could, but since Ian is on vacation, I will have to rely on you all to do the right thing and take this wholly inappropriate mode of discussion offline. I appreciate and accept your excellent advice, Martijn! Concomitantly, I have answered Serge off-list (where I did my utmost to keep my mode appropriate). Simon Poole writes: @stevea you would substantially help your cause if the route data was available for inspection, best a public source from where it could be obtained. Simon, I couldn't agree more -- but Minh's post beat me to it! (Thank you, Minh). If you look at the Established U.S. Bicycle Routes list on the Adventure Cycling page http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/use-a-us-bike-route you will find links to all the state DOT web sites or other official maps of USBRs. This section will expand as the newly approved routes are posted on state web pages. I think it can be well argued that together with these state web sites, OSM does indeed have an authoritative source. Are USBRs always signed? No, especially the brand-new ones, but they often ARE signed on the longer-established routes. Perhaps we do well to posit that USBRs in OSM are an edge case of on-the-ground-verifiability, as this is not always universally true. (I am not strictly agreeing to this, I just think it might be a helpful discussion topic which can offer some light, rather than heat). However, USBRs ARE always verifiable, just not always on-the-ground. This makes them essentially identical to boundaries, which are also in our map. So, we might call boundaries an edge case, too. The suggestion that each route be FURTHER vetted by an OSM volunteer actually bicycling it is excellent. Is this absolutely required? No, I don't think so, but I do characterize that as an excellent suggestion, and say Thank you for that. We discuss, we learn, we share, we improve. Right? SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
Simon Poole writes: (The approved USBRs in OSM could) provide some show casing of why OSM is better, instead of worse. Thank you, Simon! I'll even go one better than that: OSM might be the best data set in the world of national bicycle network routes, at least in the UK and the USA. That might be true in other countries as well, I'm don't really have personal knowledge of that, but I think I can say that about the UK (thank you Simon, Sustrans, Andy, and countless others...) and I can say it about the USA, too (as of, but certainly not before! July of last year). For example, take a look at this, the Lonvia renderer's Waymarked Trails map for bicycle routes: http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5lat=38.02101lon=-87.78818hill=0route=1# I'm especially proud of the correct tags on all the routes: names, ref tags, notes, super-relations, etc. That took some effort, coordination, understanding of OSM tenets and good old fashioned project management, ladies and gentlemen. Sure, the last two routes of 10 in Washington (about 40% entered) and 50 in Ohio (about 60% entered) still have yet to be completed, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE APPROVED LESS THAN A WEEK AGO! (Sorry for shouting). But this is maybe 6% to 7% incomplete out of 10,000 km or so of a national network. Not bad, eh? We can get there, and we large have, rather well (though there were some mistakes, they are now firmly in our past). And while Simon says (heh!) that (a couple hundred miles) could easily be surveyed by a dozen or two mappers without undue effort and completed in the upcoming months he puts his finger right on it: that might be about the number of people who ARE involved in this WikiProject (true, many as widely-disdained armchair mappers, rather than long-distance bicyclists), AND I think it could be done (mapped AND/OR bicycled) not in months, but in weeks, or even days (if just one or two people were to drink a few coffees). This (OSM) is project which can, and often does, UNIFY us, not divide us. Let's work together! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
No more of this please. I'd place this thread under moderation if I could, but since Ian is on vacation, I will have to rely on you all to do the right thing and take this wholly inappropriate mode of discussion offline. Martijn On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: 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 -- 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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
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, I believe you do illustrate a major sore point with building the routes simply from whatever documentation will/is supplied. It skips actually verifying the individual segments on the ground which is part of providing a high quality route (signed or not) in OSM. It is something that I would be very wary of doing in areas where we have a consistent road network and definitely will lead to GIGO in the states. To put it differently: if the import was combined with systematic surveying of the routes by OSM contributors instead of them just sitting at their desk then it would be a lot more palatable. SImon ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
@stevea you would substantially help your cause if the route data was available for inspection, best a public source from where it could be obtained. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
On 6/2/2014 3:27 PM, Simon Poole wrote: To put it differently: if the import was combined with systematic surveying of the routes by OSM contributors instead of them just sitting at their desk then it would be a lot more palatable. I think the appeal to local mappers to pitch in with the new bike route relation definitions is part of the logic here.For example, I already am familiar with the roads of one of the theoretical future bike routes in my area.There's a good chance that a local mapper in that state already knows part or all of the roads in the official bike route. [ Of course, I'm not putting anything in OSM since it's not even under any sort of official development yet. But if it were, I would be able to evaluate the official route definitions against my knowledge of the roads. ] ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
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 emac...@gmail.com 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] Fwd: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers
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
