I am involved in similar work for the Bicitalia bicycle route network here in Italy. To be honest I had not considered even the possibility of considering this an import. The approach has been: Where already signposted the Bicitalia routes get inserted as normal relations. Where the routes were inserted in the final proposal phase, this happened in the following way: I checked manually in the map every single way both for geometry and tagging, and then inserted it into a relation with status=proposed. Checking for geometry is necessary because we have a couple of mappers in the area who put ways into the map, from areal photography, with TIGER1 precision, obviously not good enough for cycling. Sometimes ways would be missing altogether. We selected status=proposed for these reasons: 1) the route shows up as dashed on OpenCycleMap 2) as most, if not all ways of the routes, are already existent and can be used, it is useful for cyclists 3) a map with dashed lines is a very useful tool when talking to administrators, especially as you can see in this way how they are inserted into the cycling infrastructure (i.e. cycle paths and cycle lanes.) 4) the conversion to the final implementation of the route is easy
In our experience point 3 has been particularly helpful. I think as this is a very manual and gradual process; I would not call it an import. Volker Padova, Italy On 1 June 2014 00:43, <talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea) > 2. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski) > 3. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Ian Dees) > 4. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski) > 5. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Frederik Ramm) > 6. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:10 -0700 > From: stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: <p06240801cfafd4d2c6ad@[192.168.31.124]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > > OSM's USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers to help map new > APPROVED United States Bicycle Routes. Please see > <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System > , a reference and status report for the project. Effective > immediately, > > USBR 1 in Massachusetts > USBR 10 in Washington state > USBR 36 and 37 in Illinois > USBR 50 in the District of Columbia and > USBR 50 in Ohio > > were declared by AASHTO as approved national routes. These are > essentially equivalent to freshly opened Interstate highways, except > these are for bicycles. Very helpful would be additional experienced > OSM volunteers, comfortable editing OSM relations, to > improve/complete USBRs 1, 10, 37 and 50 (in Ohio) by adding > additional route members to a relation from a soft-copy map or text > description of the route. > > If you wish to help build our national bicycle network in OSM, please > contact me to obtain route data to enter into OSM. The wiki offers > technical/tagging guidance, as well as acts as a progress reporting > mechanism. > > It is important to communicate your intentions and progress via email > or preferably wiki. The project has established process and enjoys > new growth by asking widely for additional volunteers, so please pay > attention to the many moving parts by keeping communication flowing > where it needs to. (Get route data via email, wiki update your > progress). USBRS is ~10,000 kilometers and has momentum to grow to > 20,000 in the medium-term future. Help out by adopting a route near > you! > > Though this work isn't difficult, each route might take a few hours > of effort starting with an email. After you complete a route in OSM, > one reward is to see the red line of a new, official USBR blossom in > Cycle Map layer. Other rewards happen for on-the-ground participants > (cities, counties, state DOTs, the public, stakeholders, bicycle > coalition groups...), who see the route in our widely available map. > This encourages more routes to emerge in a geographically friendly > way, facilitating harmonious progress and further growth in our > national bicycle network. > > To begin your contributions to this OSM WikiProject, reply using > steveaOSM at softworkers (dot) com. Put "USBR mapping in OSM" in the > Subject line and say where you'd like to map. Thank you! > > SteveA > California > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/6c6a095c/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:06:08 -0400 > From: Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> > To: stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: > <CADbCdJg8u7cqigzTKWvi3e1= > pattnu9ddgnxasmb5upqets...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should be > following the import guidelines. > > - Serge > On May 31, 2014 3:19 PM, "stevea" <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > > > OSM's USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers to help map new APPROVED > > United States Bicycle Routes. Please see > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System > > , a reference and status report for the project. Effective immediately, > > > > USBR 1 in Massachusetts > > USBR 10 in Washington state > > USBR 36 and 37 in Illinois > > USBR 50 in the District of Columbia and > > USBR 50 in Ohio > > > > were declared by AASHTO as approved national routes. These are > > essentially equivalent to freshly opened Interstate highways, except > these > > are for bicycles. Very helpful would be additional experienced OSM > > volunteers, comfortable editing OSM relations, to improve/complete USBRs > 1, > > 10, 37 and 50 (in Ohio) by adding additional route members to a relation > > from a soft-copy map or text description of the route. > > > > If you wish to help build our national bicycle network in OSM, please > > contact me to obtain route data to enter into OSM. The wiki offers > > technical/tagging guidance, as well as acts as a progress reporting > > mechanism. > > > > It is important to communicate your intentions and progress via email or > > preferably wiki. The project has established process and enjoys new > growth > > by asking widely for additional volunteers, so please pay attention to > the > > many moving parts by keeping communication flowing where it needs to. > (Get > > route data via email, wiki update your progress). USBRS is ~10,000 > > kilometers and has momentum to grow to 20,000 in the medium-term future. > > Help out by adopting a route near you! > > > > Though this work isn't difficult, each route might take a few hours of > > effort starting with an email. After you complete a route in OSM, one > > reward is to see the red line of a new, official USBR blossom in Cycle > Map > > layer. Other rewards happen for on-the-ground participants (cities, > > counties, state DOTs, the public, stakeholders, bicycle coalition > > groups...), who see the route in our widely available map. This > encourages > > more routes to emerge in a geographically friendly way, facilitating > > harmonious progress and further growth in our national bicycle network. > > > > To begin your contributions to this OSM WikiProject, reply using > steveaOSM > > at softworkers (dot) com. Put "USBR mapping in OSM" in the Subject line > > and say where you'd like to map. Thank you! > > > > SteveA > > California > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/65010752/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:24:21 -0500 > From: Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> > To: Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> > Cc: stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>, "talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Openstreetmap" <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: > < > cag91b3qf6uwenrb-71roono84socbela4x+dk2audp36qni...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should > > be following the import guidelines. > > > How is this any different than adding bus routes? Are we considering those > imports now, too? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/988d1718/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:33:48 -0400 > From: Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> > To: Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> > Cc: stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com>, "talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Openstreetmap" <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: > <CADbCdJig5QF0yE= > 7s2cgx9k9pmvp7f16r3gfnnu_ygmzzl2...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Ian, > > OpenTripPlanner can handle routing, which is a pretty core part of > handling bus data. OpenTripPlanner can also be fed directly from the > GTFS data from the transit authority, which simplifies updates, etc., > making a really ideal choice for applications where you want to work > with local transit data. > > - Serge > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:40:30 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: <538a4c4e.8060...@remote.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi, > > On 05/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > > How is this any different than adding bus routes? Are we considering > > those imports now, too? > > The difference between an import and normal manual mapping is usually > not *what* gets into OSM but *how*. > > If someone deducts bus routes because they travel on the bus frequently, > or they know from signage where the bus goes, or they see the bus, or > maybe even take an educated guess because they know the area, and they > then map the bus route, nobody has an issue with that and they certainly > don't need to discuss that with the community first. > > If someone starts a project that says "hey, please everybody help get > this bus route data set into OSM", then it is an import and they should > seek community buy-in first. > > This whole un-signposted-cycle-route discussion has been going back and > forth between stevea and DWG for a while; the underlying problem was not > so much whether this was an import or not (that only came up later), but > whether routes that cannot be verified on the ground (other than looking > them up in material provided by the authority that defined the route) > have a place in OSM at all. > > My personal suggestion in this matter has been: Technically it is not ok > (because not verifiable easily enough) but hey, it will be tolerated if > you don't make a big deal of it. Now that stevea has chosen to disregard > my friendly advice and make a big deal of it by seeking people to help > him import this data set, I believe we should have a broader discussion > about whether such material that is not verifiable on the ground should > be accepted into OSM at all. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33" > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:43:13 -0700 > From: stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers > Message-ID: <p0624080ccfb004f60f09@[192.168.31.124]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Sigh. > > Frederick: I very much appreciate the time the DWG took to offer me > friendly advice. My understanding was that advice was about putting > PROPOSED routes (USBRs) into OSM, and I was VERY careful to NOT do > that with my recent request. These are ACTUAL routes which are > approved by AASHTO, which essentially equates them with USA > Interstate Highways, a "highest class" object in OSM. They do not > have signs on them because they were approved/announced YESTERDAY! > The "ribbons have just been cut." > > I do my utmost to tread lightly as I continue this discussion, as I > don't want to be blocked, banned, nor see further development of > USBRs into OSM diminished. (You'll note that no new proposed USBRs > have been added since the DWG decision, showing my respect for you, > Serge, the DWG and its decision). However, I do wish to defend my > position as being blind-sided here, as you actually did "change the > rules mid-stream" on me (us, all of OSM) by making changes to the > "Proposed" wiki page. Nevertheless, that is not the issue here. > > It seems to me we already have "community buy-in:" not only has the > process of USBRs been going on for years, but it was I who untangled > the NE2 mess before he was banned, and I recently spoke about how > careful and conservative was the approach we took for the better part > of all of 2013 and early 2014. There has appeared to me and many > others virtually nothing but accolades and thanks for getting this > done and putting the USBRS into OSM. It really does seem as > important as Interstate highways, but for bicyclists. > > As I read Serge's suggestion that "this is an import and should be > following the import guidelines" I am now reading the Import > Guidelines and discover that I have already followed many of the > steps in there: out of the five steps, 1) Prerequisites and 2) > Community Buy-in, and a substantial portion of 3) Documentation have > already been followed. Even most of step 5) Uploading has been > followed. It appears that what is substantially lacking on my part > (should we agree that "this is an import" and Import Guidelines MUST > be followed) is step 4) Import Review. I am certainly ready, willing > and able to complete these steps. Perhaps I should even apologize > for not doing so. Because I did not characterize this (in my mind) > as "an import," that is my only excuse. But as I have now been told > it is (it is?) I do hereby apologize for not following Guidelines. > > As for the wider discussion about "not verifiable on the ground" > (USBRs are "verifiable" but not always "verifiable ON THE GROUND" > because they may or may not be signed). In the USA, there are > THOUSANDS of county roads which are also unsigned, but because a > county Public Works Department or state DOT authority SAYS they exist > with a particular name and/or number, they are widely known by the > public as such. Hence, not only OUGHT they be in OpenSTREETMap > (STREET is our middle name!) THEY ARE in OSM! Would it be correct to > delete these thousands of roads simply because they are poorly-signed > or unsigned? What about the miles and miles of Interstate highway > concrete that roll by without a red-white-and-blue Interstate shield? > Should relation members where there is no sign be removed from OSM's > Interstate relations? I think not. The threat of massive data like > this disappearing in OSM should make all of us think twice about a > strict requirement of "on the ground verifiability." > > We also made a similar "exception" for boundaries/borders: these are > not verifiable "on the ground" but we still do allow them in our map, > as in today's world of this-country, that-state and county-whatever, > the map would be much less useful without them. For what it is > worth, I feel the same way about (actual) USBRs. > > I agree with you that proposals can get messy and ambiguous and so I > have toned down the volume on new ones to zero. We reached an > understanding about those, and that understanding includes agreement. > > I did not think that my solicitation for volunteers (of ACTUAL routes > only, not proposed ones) would have results like this -- I didn't > wish to "tug on Superman's cape" if I thought it would. And I > certainly do not wish any downside to my own efforts in OSM, like > being banned or blocked, as I have been an enthusiastic and > ridiculously passionate OSM contributor and volunteer for over five > years. > > But now that it has, I do thank you for a civil and hopefully > fruitful discussion about these topics in a wider forum. > > Most sincerely, > > SteveA > California > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 78, Issue 32 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
