subject:"\[Talk\-us\] Removing US Bicycle Route tags"

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons wrote:

> **
>
> Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers.  The route
> numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO.  We had
> representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members
> on that group.  You say that trying to provide a clear message to local
> jurisdictions constitutes censorship.  Based on most of the comments I have
> seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged
> as USBRs if they are not USBRs.  Do you disagree with that consensus?
>

I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus.
 But if it's proposed, it should be in there.  And if AASHTO is already
referring to them in proposals, I'm not sure I understand the opposition to
keeping them there except that the renderer is displaying such routes too
specifically.  Am I missing something here?  I don't see a reason to remove
what, by all accounts, appears to be active proposals already using the
numbers, from OSM when they're already tagged appropriately.  So what I'm
saying is, how can we resolve this that doesn't involve removing factual
(if only on paper) data?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

2013-06-06 Thread Nathan Mills

On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are 
useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile 
wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR 
number or no.

Ian Dees  wrote:

>Let's bring this thread back on topic please.
>
>This isn't a cycle route ownership discussion list, this is an OSM
>community in the US discussion list.
>
>Further off-topic posts to this thread will result in moderation.
>
>
>On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons
>wrote:
>
>> Paul I don’t understand what you are saying.  You keep referring to
>“have
>> it both ways” and “playing both sides of this coin.”  It appears to
>be
>> insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the
>part
>> of Adventure Cycling.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers.  The route
>> numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO.  We had
>> representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many
>members
>> on that group.  You say that trying to provide a clear message to
>local
>> jurisdictions constitutes censorship.  Based on most of the comments
>I have
>> seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be
>tagged
>> as USBRs if they are not USBRs.  Do you disagree with that
>consensus?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has
>been.
>> Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not
>exist
>> seems unfair.  We (and many other national level advocates) did
>manage to
>> get language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the
>2010
>> election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut
>significantly.*
>> ***
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are
>the
>> ones who came up with the new USBR sign.  All the state DOTs are part
>of
>> AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs.  There is
>often
>> tension between states and national level sign design specifications,
>but
>> Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design. 
>You
>> appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no
>control.
>> 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in
>trying to
>> get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California,
>> Missouri, and Illinois.  We’ve had numerous conference calls and
>provided
>> extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have
>a good
>> relationship with them.  You seem to believe otherwise.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent
>the
>> views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to
>> implementing USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the
>> individual states?  This appears to be your message.  Adventure
>Cycling is
>> trying to coordinate with those state level teams and you seem to
>view this
>> as a power grab.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Kerry Irons
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM
>> *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken
>the
>> position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I
>and
>> others have tried to clarify that.
>>
>> Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by
>> proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people
>come
>> across proposals.
>>
>> The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the
>> meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not
>tagging
>> proposed routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame
>those
>> who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know
>from
>> experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their
>approval, why
>> would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?
>>
>> Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying

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

2013-06-06 Thread stevea

To breathe a little fresh air into this discussion (and perhaps pour 
a little oil on troubled waters):  I have enjoyed in the last few 
hours some email exchanges with both Kerry and Paul.


In short, Kerry and I are discussing how it is inappropriate for OCM 
to display a USBR as a proposed ncn when the ACA is still in the 
"corridor only" phase, and no SPECIFIC route exists.  I think she and 
I agree there.  In some of those cases, there is an existing STATE 
(rcn) route (which MAY become a USBR/ncn) and so it seems the correct 
response is to change those from ncn/proposed to rcn/actual.  If/as 
the state adopts the state route as a specific USBR, (initially as 
proposed, perhaps paralleling the existing rcn, perhaps not), it can 
then be promoted, or another relation in OSM can capture this for 
display in OCM.


Does this make everybody happy?  Consensus is important, even critical, in OSM.

SteveA
California


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons 
<irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

You really are making this personal Paul, but I don't understand why.

That's not the intent.

I only asked that those who might want to help clean up the mis-tagged routes
could contact me directly. Is that some sort of OSM violation?

Not in so much as itself, but given that this is a community 
project, your audience is the community collaboration, not the 
individual.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ian Dees

Let's bring this thread back on topic please.

This isn't a cycle route ownership discussion list, this is an OSM
community in the US discussion list.

Further off-topic posts to this thread will result in moderation.


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons wrote:

> Paul I don’t understand what you are saying.  You keep referring to “have
> it both ways” and “playing both sides of this coin.”  It appears to be
> insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the part
> of Adventure Cycling.
>
> ** **
>
> Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers.  The route
> numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO.  We had
> representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members
> on that group.  You say that trying to provide a clear message to local
> jurisdictions constitutes censorship.  Based on most of the comments I have
> seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged
> as USBRs if they are not USBRs.  Do you disagree with that consensus?
>
> ** **
>
> There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has been.
> Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not exist
> seems unfair.  We (and many other national level advocates) did manage to
> get language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the 2010
> election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut significantly.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are the
> ones who came up with the new USBR sign.  All the state DOTs are part of
> AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs.  There is often
> tension between states and national level sign design specifications, but
> Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design.  You
> appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no control.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in trying to
> get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California,
> Missouri, and Illinois.  We’ve had numerous conference calls and provided
> extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have a good
> relationship with them.  You seem to believe otherwise.
>
> ** **
>
> Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent the
> views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to
> implementing USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the
> individual states?  This appears to be your message.  Adventure Cycling is
> trying to coordinate with those state level teams and you seem to view this
> as a power grab.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry Irons****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM
> *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons 
> wrote:
>
> Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken the
> position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I and
> others have tried to clarify that.
>
> Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by
> proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come
> across proposals.
>
> The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the
> meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging
> proposed routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame those
> who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know from
> experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why
> would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?
>
> Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get
> the proposals retagged for one specific renderer.  Rather than removing
> information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to
> follow these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some
> sort of margin of error for proposed routes.  Hopefully Andy Allen could
> chime in since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer.
>
> Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there are a
> number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on their
> own.  However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few states
> can claim to be ‘experienced” in the process.  I got involved in this
> because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a bunc

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

Paul I don't understand what you are saying.  You keep referring to "have it
both ways" and "playing both sides of this coin."  It appears to be
insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the part
of Adventure Cycling.

 

Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers.  The route
numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO.  We had
representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members on
that group.  You say that trying to provide a clear message to local
jurisdictions constitutes censorship.  Based on most of the comments I have
seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged
as USBRs if they are not USBRs.  Do you disagree with that consensus?

 

There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has been.
Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not exist seems
unfair.  We (and many other national level advocates) did manage to get
language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the 2010
election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut significantly.

 

The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are the
ones who came up with the new USBR sign.  All the state DOTs are part of
AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs.  There is often
tension between states and national level sign design specifications, but
Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design.  You
appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no control.

 

We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in trying to
get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California,
Missouri, and Illinois.  We've had numerous conference calls and provided
extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have a good
relationship with them.  You seem to believe otherwise.

 

Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent the
views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to implementing
USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the individual states?
This appears to be your message.  Adventure Cycling is trying to coordinate
with those state level teams and you seem to view this as a power grab.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons 
wrote:

Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken the
position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I and
others have tried to clarify that.

Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by
proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come
across proposals.

The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the meaning
of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging proposed
routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame those who are
confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know from experience
how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why would we
engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?

Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get the
proposals retagged for one specific renderer.  Rather than removing
information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to follow
these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some sort of
margin of error for proposed routes.  Hopefully Andy Allen could chime in
since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer.

Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there are a
number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on their
own.  However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few states
can claim to be 'experienced" in the process.  I got involved in this
because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a bunch of
USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing.  That does
not reflect "a fundamental misunderstanding of 'proposed' on exclusively
[my] part."

 

You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates headaches
and extra work.  Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate those
headaches and extra work is confusing to me.

We're ultimately on the same page here, but we're coming at this from
differing approaches, and I can't help but to think the ACA's trying to have
it both ways when it comes to proposed routes, particularly those still in
the early stages.

I don't know what you are referencing regarding Oregon.  At this time Oregon
has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state ro

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

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons wrote:

> You really are making this personal Paul, but I don’t understand why.

That's not the intent.

> I only asked that those who might want to help clean up the mis-tagged
> routes
> could contact me directly.  Is that some sort of OSM violation?

Not in so much as itself, but given that this is a community project, your
audience is the community collaboration, not the individual.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons wrote:

> Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken the
> position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I and
> others have tried to clarify that.
>
Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by
proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come
across proposals.

> The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the
> meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging
> proposed routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame those
> who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know from
> experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why
> would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?
>
Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get the
proposals retagged for one specific renderer.  Rather than removing
information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to
follow these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some
sort of margin of error for proposed routes.  Hopefully Andy Allen could
chime in since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer.

> **
>
> **Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there
> are a number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on
> their own.  However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few
> states can claim to be ‘experienced” in the process.  I got involved in
> this because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a
> bunch of USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing.
> That does not reflect “a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘proposed’ on
> exclusively [my] part.”
>
> **
>
> ** **
>
> You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates
> headaches and extra work.  Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate
> those headaches and extra work is confusing to me.
>
We're ultimately on the same page here, but we're coming at this from
differing approaches, and I can't help but to think the ACA's trying to
have it both ways when it comes to proposed routes, particularly those
still in the early stages.

> *I* don’t know what you are referencing regarding Oregon.  At this time
> Oregon has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state
> routes rather than with the USBRS.  We think we have a good working
> relationship with Oregon but you appear to have inside information.  Please
> contact me off-list if you’re willing to share.
>
My experience with the two ODOTs I've been in contact with:

Both Oregon and Oklahoma are open to the idea of USBRs.

It's been a while since I've worked with Oregon but my impression from them
is that they've found their ACA interactions to be along the lines of the
ACA delivering edicts without providing any assistance for securing federal
funding for installing and maintaining these routes (even for no-brainer,
shovel-done, just-install-the-signs projects like the USBR 97 concurrency
with the entire length of the Oregon Coast Bike Route).  Oregon seems to
have felt left out of the design process, since the USBR trailblazers are
confusingly similar to Oregon State Route shields.  They want to get it
done, but need help, not just told what to do.  They're already on board so
quit selling; it's time to deliver on getting the money to make it happen,
and Oregon's feeling the burn on that.

Oklahoma is positive to the idea, having just initiated it's first state
bike route which is almost certainly 100% concurrent with USBR 66, but
isn't sure how to get it off the ground (it's been official since last
November for the length of Historic US 66 in Oklahoma except where State
Highway 66 still extends, it takes that instead, except on segments where
it takes a road with minimum speeds in which it's just unclear where it's
ultimately going to land even now that it's official).  This could probably
be salvaged, but getting more than just the ACA involved and perhaps
getting some transportation planning trade groups *in Oklahoma* would be a
good start.  Oklahoma's already sold on the tourism aspect and wants to
make it happen.

Ultimately, it feels like ACA bit off a little too much to do on their own,
and really needs to get involved with more groups to encourage the
dialogue, not snuff it out and keep it to themselves.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

You really are making this personal Paul, but I dont understand why.  I
only asked that those who might want to help clean up the mis-tagged routes
could contact me directly.  Is that some sort of OSM violation?


Kerry

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:43 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

See, that's the crux of the thing, though...  firstly, be aware that NE2 was
banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the
community, and taking things off-list where things couldn't be discussed
with the community, so you're just as guilty as he is right now with that
request.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, KerryIrons 
wrote:
Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers.  This is the issue I
raised back in March and the only issue of concern.  I asked the person who
did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not.  I find subsequently
that he has been banned.  Steve All of California has agreed to help in
removing those tags.  Others who are interested in this issue can contact me
off-list.


Kerry Irons

-Original Message-
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM
To: KerryIrons
Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't see
the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are
there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at?

KerryIrons writes:
 > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
 >
 > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US
Bicycle  > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal
highways  > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle
routes,  > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO
approves  > designation.
 >
 > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state  >
department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
> proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an  >
application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages  >
signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on  >
paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
> is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first
> step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to
that  > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each
route  > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on
OSM but  > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for
the approval  > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local
jurisdiction level.
 >
 > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at  >
www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
 > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a
route  > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean
that any  > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the
route.  On the  > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is
approved by AASHTO, a  > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor
exists but no route is  > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor
could be added along that  > path.  A corridor is a concept for future
development of a route.  It is not  > a route.
 >
 > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that
explains  > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is
inaccurate and  > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.
As of now there  > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are
being developed.
 >
 > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
> would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
> getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing
the  > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going
through a  > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing
that it does,  > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.
Spending hours  > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they
feel it is being  > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map
before they ever heard  > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
 >
 > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
> various USBR project te

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

Actually Paul, people have disagreed.  There are those who have taken the
position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?"  I and
others have tried to clarify that.

 

The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the meaning
of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging proposed
routes with USBR numbers.  It sounds like you want to blame those who are
confused rather than help reduce the confusion.  If we know from experience
how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why would we
engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?

 

Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there are a
number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on their
own.  However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few states
can claim to be 'experienced" in the process.  I got involved in this
because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a bunch of
USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing.  That does
not reflect "a fundamental misunderstanding of 'proposed' on exclusively
[my] part."

 

You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates headaches
and extra work.  Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate those
headaches and extra work is confusing to me.

 

I don't know what you are referencing regarding Oregon.  At this time Oregon
has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state routes
rather than with the USBRS.  We think we have a good working relationship
with Oregon but you appear to have inside information.  Please contact me
off-list if you're willing to share.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:26 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, KerryIrons 
wrote:

Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.

First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal highways
in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle routes,
proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO approves
designation.

 

Nobody's disagreeing here except you.  Please google "define proposed",
because that's quite relevant given what you're arguing against right now.

 

There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on OSM but
tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for the approval
process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local jurisdiction level.

 

Sounds like a personal problem, not a problem with the tagging.  As in,
"they're not understanding what the word proposed means."

 

You can look at the USBR corridor plan at
www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
<http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/nat
ional-corridor-plan/> 
rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route
could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any
specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route.  On the
corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a
shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is
defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that
path.  A corridor is a concept for future development of a route.  It is not
a route.

 

Nobody expects a proposed route to be the final route on the ground.  Again,
there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "proposed" on
exclusively your part. 

 

As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing the
actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a
given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does,
is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.  Spending hours
trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being
shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever heard
about it is not a good way to spend time either.

 

Given how long you've been doing this, I'm surprised there's this one detail
that most people in the cycling community gets already:  That's life.  And
it's what every state goes through with their cycling community with state
bike routes.  It's what every city goes through with it's local networks.
Welcome to the world of transportation advocacy.

 

My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
various USBR pro

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

See, that's the crux of the thing, though...  firstly, be aware that NE2
was banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the
community, and taking things off-list where things couldn't be discussed
with the community, so you're just as guilty as he is right now with that
request.


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, KerryIrons wrote:

> Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers.  This is the issue I
> raised back in March and the only issue of concern.  I asked the person who
> did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not.  I find subsequently
> that he has been banned.  Steve All of California has agreed to help in
> removing those tags.  Others who are interested in this issue can contact
> me
> off-list.
>
>
> Kerry Irons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM
> To: KerryIrons
> Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
>
> Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't
> see
> the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
> incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are
> there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at?
>
> KerryIrons writes:
>  > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
>  >
>  > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US
> Bicycle  > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all
> federal
> highways  > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle
> routes,  > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO
> approves  > designation.
>  >
>  > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state  >
> department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
> > proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an  >
> application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages  >
> signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on
>  >
> paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
> > is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the
> first
> > step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to
> that  > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each
> route  > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes
> on
> OSM but  > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for
> the approval  > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local
> jurisdiction level.
>  >
>  > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at  >
>
> www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
>  > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a
> route  > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean
> that any  > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the
> route.  On the  > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is
> approved by AASHTO, a  > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor
> exists but no route is  > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor
> could be added along that  > path.  A corridor is a concept for future
> development of a route.  It is not  > a route.
>  >
>  > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that
> explains  > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is
> inaccurate and  > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.
> As of now there  > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are
> being developed.
>  >
>  > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
> > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
> > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing
> the  > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going
> through a  > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing
> that it does,  > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.
> Spending hours  > trying to convince a community to accept a route when
> they
> feel it is being  > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map
> before they ever heard  > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
>  >
>  > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts
> of
> > various USBR

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

Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers.  This is the issue I
raised back in March and the only issue of concern.  I asked the person who
did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not.  I find subsequently
that he has been banned.  Steve All of California has agreed to help in
removing those tags.  Others who are interested in this issue can contact me
off-list.


Kerry Irons

-Original Message-
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM
To: KerryIrons
Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't see
the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's
incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are
there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at?

KerryIrons writes:
 > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
 >
 > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US
Bicycle  > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal
highways  > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle
routes,  > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO
approves  > designation.
 >
 > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state  >
department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
> proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an  >
application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages  >
signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on  >
paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
> is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first
> step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to
that  > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each
route  > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on
OSM but  > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for
the approval  > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local
jurisdiction level.
 >
 > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at  >
www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
 > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a
route  > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean
that any  > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the
route.  On the  > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is
approved by AASHTO, a  > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor
exists but no route is  > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor
could be added along that  > path.  A corridor is a concept for future
development of a route.  It is not  > a route.
 >
 > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that
explains  > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is
inaccurate and  > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.
As of now there  > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are
being developed.
 >
 > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
> would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
> getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing
the  > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going
through a  > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing
that it does,  > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.
Spending hours  > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they
feel it is being  > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map
before they ever heard  > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
 >
 > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
> various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
> extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.
 >
 >
 > Kerry Irons
 > Adventure Cycling Association
 >
 > -Original Message-
 > From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com]  > Sent: Wednesday, June 05,
2013 7:02 PM  > To: Frederik Ramm  > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org  >
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags  >  >  > Frederik Ramm
 writes:
 >
 > > An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
> > usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily  > >
check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are  > >
unlikely to be signposted, having them in O

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

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, KerryIrons wrote:

> Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
>
> First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
> Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal highways
> in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle routes,
> proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO approves
> designation.
>

Nobody's disagreeing here except you.  Please google "define proposed",
because that's quite relevant given what you're arguing against right now.

> There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on OSM but
> tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for the approval
> process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local jurisdiction level.
>

Sounds like a personal problem, not a problem with the tagging.  As in,
"they're not understanding what the word proposed means."

> You can look at the USBR corridor plan at
>
> www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
> rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route
> could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any
> specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route.  On the
> corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a
> shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is
> defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that
> path.  A corridor is a concept for future development of a route.  It is
> not
> a route.
>

Nobody expects a proposed route to be the final route on the ground.
 Again, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "proposed" on
exclusively your part.

As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
> would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
> getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing
> the
> actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a
> given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does,
> is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.  Spending hours
> trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being
> shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever
> heard
> about it is not a good way to spend time either.
>

Given how long you've been doing this, I'm surprised there's this one
detail that most people in the cycling community gets already:  That's
life.  And it's what every state goes through with their cycling community
with state bike routes.  It's what every city goes through with it's local
networks.  Welcome to the world of transportation advocacy.

> My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
> various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
> extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.

Nobody's putting out any information that isn't already on the table,
though.  I really can't help but to think this is more of a situation of
the ACA wanting to monopolize the process, which is something I know Oregon
DOT has criticized the ACA of in the past.  Maybe a little less ego and a
little more cooperation is in order.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Minh Nguyen  wrote:

> Along these lines, my opinion is that a proposed route number _may_ be
> tagged if (but only if) the number has currency beyond aspirational
> planning documents.

This seems exceptionally silly, since that number's still proposed (just
not gotten very far).  Not to the point of vandalism, but still in the
category of "you're not helping."
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

2013-06-06 Thread Russ Nelson

Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I
don't see the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly,
well, that's incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this
thread -- are there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could
look at?

KerryIrons writes:
 > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
 > 
 > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
 > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal highways
 > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle routes,
 > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO approves
 > designation.
 > 
 > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state
 > department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
 > proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an
 > application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages
 > signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on
 > paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
 > is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first
 > step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to that
 > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each route
 > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on OSM but
 > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for the approval
 > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local jurisdiction level.
 > 
 > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at
 > www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
 > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route
 > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any
 > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route.  On the
 > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a
 > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is
 > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that
 > path.  A corridor is a concept for future development of a route.  It is not
 > a route.
 > 
 > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that explains
 > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is inaccurate and
 > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.  As of now there
 > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are being developed.
 > 
 > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
 > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
 > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing the
 > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a
 > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does,
 > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.  Spending hours
 > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being
 > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever heard
 > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
 > 
 > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
 > various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
 > extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.
 > 
 > 
 > Kerry Irons
 > Adventure Cycling Association
 > 
 > -Original Message-
 > From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] 
 > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:02 PM
 > To: Frederik Ramm
 > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
 > 
 > 
 > Frederik Ramm  writes:
 > 
 > > An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we 
 > > usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily 
 > > check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are 
 > > unlikely to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.
 > 
 > I see verifiability as having a broader sense.  In the case of officially
 > proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the government
 > documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the route numbering
 > authority has in fact put the route into proposed status.  That's
 > essentially what Kerry is talking about.  That's beyond looking at signs,
 > but some things on the map aren't obvious from standing near them - official
 > names are a complicated mix of signs on the ground, meeting minutes from
 > naming authorities, 911 or tax datab

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

2013-06-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2013/6/6 Minh Nguyen 

> For these seven counties, the route is currently tagged network=ncn,
> cycle_network=US:US, ref=50, state=proposed.



Despite of some "major maps" (e.g. open cycle map) interpreting
"state=proposed" correctly, this tagging approach is generally flawed. Have
a look in the wiki at highway=proposed and highway=construction, which are
combined with construction/proposed=primary/secondary/etc. You can also
find relevant discussions in the various mailing list archives (also for
abandoned, disused and ruins).

This second approach is much more solid as it doesn't put the mapmakers at
risk to misinterpret the object (if it doesn't check for *=proposed it
won't render anything, while in the first case if you don't look at the
state tag you will render the object as active which it isn't). IMHO we
should follow a similar approach for routes (route=proposed, proposed=*).

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

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

Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.

First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal highways
in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle routes,
proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO approves
designation.

The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state
department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an
application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages
signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on
paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first
step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to that
route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each route
section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on OSM but
tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for the approval
process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local jurisdiction level.

You can look at the USBR corridor plan at
www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route
could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any
specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route.  On the
corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a
shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is
defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that
path.  A corridor is a concept for future development of a route.  It is not
a route.

It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that explains
the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is inaccurate and
unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.  As of now there
are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are being developed.

As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing the
actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a
given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does,
is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.  Spending hours
trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being
shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever heard
about it is not a good way to spend time either.

My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.

Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:02 PM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Frederik Ramm  writes:

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

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

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

I don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the federal
bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers.  A road is a US highway if it's
officially been designated, and the signs are expected to keep up with that
offiical designation.  If there's a case where a road has been de

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

2013-06-06 Thread Minh Nguyen

On 2013-06-05 3:40 PM, KerryIrons wrote:

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

Along these lines, my opinion is that a proposed route number _may_ be
tagged if (but only if) the number has currency beyond aspirational
planning documents. To borrow the language of linguistics, OSM is
descriptive, not prescriptive. For those who missed the discussion in
March, here are two cases in point:

- In Kentucky, two informal touring routes were tagged network=ncn,
cycle_network=US:US, ref=21/25, state=proposed. AFAICT, these numbers
have yet to be associated with a specific route designation proposal in
Kentucky, so I removed them. [1] (The badges will eventually disappear
from OpenCycleMap.)

- Ohio has taken concrete steps towards implementing Route 50. The
proposal is being developed in full public view, with local authorities
in seven counties passing resolutions of support. [2] Some of the
resolutions even stipulate the number 50 and a specific route. [3] For
these seven counties, the route is currently tagged network=ncn,
cycle_network=US:US, ref=50, state=proposed. The result is a dotted line
with a badge, making it easy for people to keep tabs on the project's
progress.

The key here is that the route has been proposed and promoted but not
yet approved. Sure, there's always a chance AASHTO will tweak or reject
the proposal after it's finalized and officially submitted, but the good
news is that OSM will be fixed if that happens. The same can't be said
of those resolutions. :-)

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16442009
[2]
http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/a-trip-to-the-midwest-update-on-indiana-and-ohio/

[3] http://ci.london.oh.us/files/Resolution%20138-12.pdf

--
Minh Nguyen
Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/

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

[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

2013-06-05 Thread Volker Schmidt

Hi,

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

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

Volker
FIAB
Padova Italy

On 6 June 2013 00:40,  wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread stevea

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


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


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


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

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


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

SteveA
California

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread stevea


On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

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


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


Frederik Ramm wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


SteveA
California

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread Greg Troxel

Thomas Colson  writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread Thomas Colson

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

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

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

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

Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm :

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread andrzej zaborowski

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread Greg Troxel

Frederik Ramm  writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread Frederik Ramm


Kerry,

On 06.06.2013 00:40, KerryIrons wrote:

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


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


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


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


Bye
Frederik

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread KerryIrons

Some clarification is needed.

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

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

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

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

Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

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

Hi,

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

me neither...

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

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

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

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

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

Just my $.02 though.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

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

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

2013-06-05 Thread Martin Koppenhöfer



Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm :

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


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

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

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