Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Thanks, Richard. That's valuable input and I've updated the USBRS wiki, which effectively puts the (informal) proposal for proposed:route=bicycle into a sort of stalemate. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
SteveA wrote: > With both of us in agreement about tag "proposed:route=bicycle" > (especially as it co-exists with "state=proposed") can we gain > some more consensus (here, soon?) allowing us to move closer towards > recommending in our wiki that we tag proposed USBRs with > "proposed:route=bicycle"? Honestly, please don't. state=proposed has been around since the very first days of route relations and everything supports it. proposed:route=bicycle is wordier and has no advantage other than some people appear to think tags with a colon in are automatically superior, because XML has namespaces and therefore we must too. Changing the tags will achieve nothing; will mean that data consumers have to support two schemes instead of one; and will needlessly break stuff. On the positive side, great to see all these USBRs going into OSM as ever! Richard cycle.travel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Excellent! I see no problem keeping state=proposed with the lifecycle. With both of us in agreement about tag "proposed:route=bicycle" (especially as it co-exists with "state=proposed") can we gain some more consensus (here, soon?) allowing us to move closer towards recommending in our wiki that we tag proposed USBRs with "proposed:route=bicycle"? I'd love to see wider agreement that these tags together are a good way to move forward, as "state" continues the legacy rendering support by OCM and cyclosm and "proposed:route" is harmonious with tagging schemes that are more modern as they grow into sensible namespaces like Lifecycle. > Another tag in that realm that I like to use is the `start_date` or in this > case the `opening_date`. The latter is for some future date, if known, when > the route would change to regular active status. Then you can add the > start_date. I find those useful when another mapper might not see something, > either on imagery or out in the world. If they see a recent start date, it > might help explain the discrepancy. I do put start_date and end_date on objects in OSM (I just did on a fire=perimeter that covers a huge portion of my county and which burned for over five weeks). But for proposed USBRs, predicting what to use as "start_date" requires predicting when AASHTO will complete the voting on its ballot for state's USBR applications during that AASHTO "round" (twice a year), and we simply can't do that. It's easier to wait until "after the fact" (OSM receives news that the AASHTO ballot has completed and published results) and then simply remove the "state=proposed" tag: that's how we've been doing it, it's well-understood, it's quite simple / straightforward and it "works" (causing OCM to render solid route lines from initially dashed route lines), but more importantly, as accurate route data in OSM as a database. So while I agree with you it would be useful to do this, we don't have a crystal ball that allows it to predictably happen in this case. I think the "state=proposed" and "proposed:route=bicycle" tags convey enough, especially as source=* tags and/or changeset comments often denote a pending USBR being part of a particular AASHTO ballot — "AASHTO Autumn 2020 round," for example. The whole idea of these entering OSM is to have enough time to enter them (sometimes they are hundreds or even thousands of kilometers of route to enter) by the time they become approved. Sometimes we "beat the clock" and end up with some dashed lines and we wait for approval, sometimes we lag a bit and they get approved first, THEN we complete our entry of them into OSM. > Annotation geekery aside, it brings me great joy that OSM holds such a vast > repository of bicycle/pedestrian related data that are virtually unparalleled > by other commercial mapping products. Keep up the good work adding and > maintaining these networks. Very kind of you to say. There ARE other (often commercial) such "repositories" (e.g. RideWithGPS) but these tend towards the ephemeral, transitory-natured "I think this a good bike ride" GPX data, rather than "these are official or quasi-official (signed on the ground)" bicycle route data contained in OSM. Happily. the Internet has room for both. Is OSM "unparalleled" when it comes to "official" bicycle/pedestrian related data? Well, that's a great goal to shoot for, I'm delighted to receive the feedback you believe we're "getting there!" SteveA Simply "one more volunteer" doing this, there are many! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
I have added a one-line addition to our USBRS wiki suggesting that some aspect of Lifecycle_prefix (with a link to that wiki) include into USBRS route proposals something like "proposed:route=bicycle" in addition to state=proposed, while welcoming further suggestions and refinements. Thanks, again, Elliott, for a great suggestion. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Yes, for USBR 201 we essentially followed the ECGW. This made for some less-than-direct segments, but that was what the locals wanted. But that does not mean that the route shown on OSM Cycle is proposed USBR 201. Only when you see the 201 tag on the map will this be the case. Kerry -Original Message- From: stevea Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:57 PM To: Elliott Plack Cc: talk-us Subject: Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval On Sep 22, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Great work getting these into the map already Steve! I work on the MDOT bike > team (as a GIS consultant) so it is great to see this on the map so quickly. Thank you, Elliott; nice to see your reply! I agree about "so quickly:" I posted a request here and just a couple/few days later, an intrepid OSM volunteer had finished USBR 201 in Maryland before I could brew a cup of coffee! Then, when it was suggested that the route become fully bi-directional, he quickly refined it to be so (just yesterday). Wow! (OSM has some great mappers!) > A note about the *proposed* routes, they do appear in the OSM Cyclemap > already [1]. > [1] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5798&mlon=-76.6054#map=15/39.57 > 98/-76.6054&layers=C I believe what is going on here is that East Coast Greenway (ECG, a "quasi-national" bicycle route not part of the USBRS, but sometimes, like here, sharing segments with it as USBR 201) is that OpenCycleMap (OCM) is in the process of redrawing the combined / shared segments of ECG + USBR 201 (in Maryland). OCM can (and often does) take several days or even a week or two to re-render. And, Andy Allan (OCM's author/maintainer) recently upgraded OCM to vector tiles with some newer rules for how specific tags (including and especially routes tagged state=proposed) are differently-rendered than as before (before vector tiles). If I'm mistaken and somebody wants to correct me here, I welcome that, as I'm speculating a bit at what/how OCM is "currently rendering." It's a bit like watching paint dry: the colors can change a bit as it does. > Instead of using the `state=proposed` tagging [2], you might consider putting > a lifecycle prefix [3] on the network tag so as to prevent data users from > integrating it blindly. > [2] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11654314#map=11/39.5964/-76.202 > 2&layers=C [3] = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix The usage of state=proposed on bicycle routes is long (in my experience, going back to about 2010) and somewhat complex history, I've exchanged quite a bit (though not TOO frequent!) emails with Andy on this, he has been most helpful, especially with the switch to vector tiles earlier this year. It is also quite deliberate, as state=proposed DOES render (in OCM as dashed, not solid) but does NOT render in Lonvia's waymarkedtrails bicycle renderer, providing a contrast between seeing the routes as proposed (and dashed) or not as all, as they are "not quite yet approved nor signed (yet)." This contrast is documented in our USBRS wiki. Additionally, a newer bicycle renderer (cyclosm) has emerged which also renders state=proposed. I very much like the idea of Lifecycle_prefix in addition to state=proposed (I don't think it must be a choice between one and the other). Using both tags (state and a lifecycle prefix) somewhat "standardizes" the concept of "proposed" in a wider OSM context, while continuing use of state=proposed (as it is supported in OCM), allowing the "dashing" of routes so tagged to continue in those renderers where the tag is applied and is supported. We (OSM, ACA, a sponsor of USBRS, even AASHTO itself) have all participated in rather carefully crafting and or supporting this process and set of tags, which emerged in 2013. I gave a talk at SOTM-US / Washington, DC about this in April, 2014 and we've been using this carefully-hammered-out consensus since. Your suggestion to consider Lifecycle_prefix in addition is both welcome and excellent, imo. Thank you. If anybody wishes to contribute a suggested strategy to include Lifecycle_prefix tagging in our USBRS wiki, I welcome that and also consider doing so myself. What a great project (OSM) we have here, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
On Sep 22, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Great work getting these into the map already Steve! I work on the MDOT bike > team (as a GIS consultant) so it is great to see this on the map so quickly. Thank you, Elliott; nice to see your reply! I agree about "so quickly:" I posted a request here and just a couple/few days later, an intrepid OSM volunteer had finished USBR 201 in Maryland before I could brew a cup of coffee! Then, when it was suggested that the route become fully bi-directional, he quickly refined it to be so (just yesterday). Wow! (OSM has some great mappers!) > A note about the *proposed* routes, they do appear in the OSM Cyclemap > already [1]. > [1] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5798&mlon=-76.6054#map=15/39.5798/-76.6054&layers=C I believe what is going on here is that East Coast Greenway (ECG, a "quasi-national" bicycle route not part of the USBRS, but sometimes, like here, sharing segments with it as USBR 201) is that OpenCycleMap (OCM) is in the process of redrawing the combined / shared segments of ECG + USBR 201 (in Maryland). OCM can (and often does) take several days or even a week or two to re-render. And, Andy Allan (OCM's author/maintainer) recently upgraded OCM to vector tiles with some newer rules for how specific tags (including and especially routes tagged state=proposed) are differently-rendered than as before (before vector tiles). If I'm mistaken and somebody wants to correct me here, I welcome that, as I'm speculating a bit at what/how OCM is "currently rendering." It's a bit like watching paint dry: the colors can change a bit as it does. > Instead of using the `state=proposed` tagging [2], you might consider putting > a lifecycle prefix [3] on the network tag so as to prevent data users from > integrating it blindly. > [2] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11654314#map=11/39.5964/-76.2022&layers=C > [3] = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix The usage of state=proposed on bicycle routes is long (in my experience, going back to about 2010) and somewhat complex history, I've exchanged quite a bit (though not TOO frequent!) emails with Andy on this, he has been most helpful, especially with the switch to vector tiles earlier this year. It is also quite deliberate, as state=proposed DOES render (in OCM as dashed, not solid) but does NOT render in Lonvia's waymarkedtrails bicycle renderer, providing a contrast between seeing the routes as proposed (and dashed) or not as all, as they are "not quite yet approved nor signed (yet)." This contrast is documented in our USBRS wiki. Additionally, a newer bicycle renderer (cyclosm) has emerged which also renders state=proposed. I very much like the idea of Lifecycle_prefix in addition to state=proposed (I don't think it must be a choice between one and the other). Using both tags (state and a lifecycle prefix) somewhat "standardizes" the concept of "proposed" in a wider OSM context, while continuing use of state=proposed (as it is supported in OCM), allowing the "dashing" of routes so tagged to continue in those renderers where the tag is applied and is supported. We (OSM, ACA, a sponsor of USBRS, even AASHTO itself) have all participated in rather carefully crafting and or supporting this process and set of tags, which emerged in 2013. I gave a talk at SOTM-US / Washington, DC about this in April, 2014 and we've been using this carefully-hammered-out consensus since. Your suggestion to consider Lifecycle_prefix in addition is both welcome and excellent, imo. Thank you. If anybody wishes to contribute a suggested strategy to include Lifecycle_prefix tagging in our USBRS wiki, I welcome that and also consider doing so myself. What a great project (OSM) we have here, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, September 18, 2020 1:53 PM, stevea wrote: > There are at least four new national bicycle routes "pending" in the USBRS! > (Ballots by state Departments of Transportation before AASHTO's Autumn 2020 > round): > USBR 201 in Maryland. This one has now been completed. The way is only good in one direction (east-to-west), however, and doesn't take into account the dual carriageways along the way. I like to see the nice, pretty straight line on the relation so I'm not sure if a separate relation is needed for going the opposite direction (east bound) or if one should just tag the other side of the road where applicable. In any case, this is done for the most part. - Sparks -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail wsFzBAEBCAAGBQJfaQElACEJEIB2q94CS7PRFiEECXyCw1LfxkpQwuOjgHar 3gJLs9FBoxAAxdDm3nCQ7Ht0RF723jEh6hRSp8810f/BdrqrS1UTxFFqnCUI uoP510wGFmLBHXXp73JvNg3MvqvXvn9QVBvrZs230+TzASNFpuw2gr47pojx 5hOt/9R69CUjNLhw+4cNVzpkEfvfPa1oJ+ySxdKtySULzkg/JehWfVL1CDQV 82JrC4AjWs0wWgoVFJkuM8GcskuRUxaVR/jffYhXP6dYVbVHM9bOD/4nbRRz nQ+fctc6pqwcueHKGPgqOFG/u1HVmFHXM0HaFV+ri3GDJFIdPizaHllI6Q30 yKorEzsZVUe2sSokoD1JfqXKmSxiTXtWmh1AXZ521SWPIEMlZpzPhzhtQEV5 nJWLsxQLOvY95XU7F6JgPFvbivGILNePjfj6vqudgGpcJC6J1o2rVc48oT1D Tx13FghKoFnUJIiVrwhVUooESadjJ3fFUoEMTv1cf6dxCdCtnJeDpK6NYtmS ecz54I7KEbK2SIf38snecTzCWpxTqqh+h1Z6YPXhK1dz67j+mAgp7G6yruJi aTjnx5qX+IvOn0NzNiYfGzaVK/bb3GRTpl6w5aymhNV03ltpLMHpqofcUeuP Yh3GTAJg5xTzhikE631EpR//MiB/lNmZOahRUT6Go8MXCwIvOFdvUQxnTdK4 FTVNXpXHd0V/QuGOnkR6dGzCk3EVaVQ+RJI= =v376 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Minor correction to my previous post: USBR 1 in Washington DC is a new route, not a realignment. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Correction. USBR 1 in Washington DC is a new route. Only 7.5 miles long, but on the other side of the river from USBR 50. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association -Original Message- From: stevea Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 1:54 PM To: talk-us Subject: United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval There are at least four new national bicycle routes "pending" in the USBRS! (Ballots by state Departments of Transportation before AASHTO's Autumn 2020 round): USBR 11 in West Virginia (done in OSM), USBR 30 in North Dakota (done in OSM), USBR 50 in Washington, District of Columbia (a realignment only, done in OSM) and USBR 201 in Maryland. To help OSM "get ahead of the curve" of the Autumn 2020 AASHTO ballot, the USBR 201 application by Maryland DOT is available, allowing OSM to enter these state-at-a-time national bicycle route data. This route has been "seeded" as a route relation and still needs to be fully entered into OSM. Please visit our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM for a link to the route data ballot for USBR 201 in Maryland. OSM-US has explicit permission from AASHTO to enter these data from these ballots. Thank you for helping to build Earth's largest official cycling route network: check out our wiki, follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun making bicycle route data in OSM more complete and better! SteveA California One of many USBRS-in-OSM folks (among other hats I wear) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
There are at least four new national bicycle routes "pending" in the USBRS! (Ballots by state Departments of Transportation before AASHTO's Autumn 2020 round): USBR 11 in West Virginia (done in OSM), USBR 30 in North Dakota (done in OSM), USBR 50 in Washington, District of Columbia (a realignment only, done in OSM) and USBR 201 in Maryland. To help OSM "get ahead of the curve" of the Autumn 2020 AASHTO ballot, the USBR 201 application by Maryland DOT is available, allowing OSM to enter these state-at-a-time national bicycle route data. This route has been "seeded" as a route relation and still needs to be fully entered into OSM. Please visit our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM for a link to the route data ballot for USBR 201 in Maryland. OSM-US has explicit permission from AASHTO to enter these data from these ballots. Thank you for helping to build Earth's largest official cycling route network: check out our wiki, follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun making bicycle route data in OSM more complete and better! SteveA California One of many USBRS-in-OSM folks (among other hats I wear) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
