Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
An update to the talk-us pages on what most here might feel got typed to death in a lengthy thread. Kerry and I have recently exchanged over a dozen missives, resulting in substantial improvement in how OSM captures data representing national bicycle routes. However, due to slower render cycles, the Cycle Map layer (OCM) has catching up to do, especially at wider zoom levels. Correctly (well, SUBSTANTIALLY correctly!) tagged are completed routes as part of the USBR system: e.g. USBR 1 and 76, USBR 20 and 35 in Michigan, with route=bicycle + network=ncn + ref=#. Additionally, the (confusing and usually incorrect) tagging NE2 added to many state routes (network=rcn) is being slowly but surely removed as it is untangled from these routes due to what Kerry knows first-hand: most of these ncn=proposed tags were added as NE2 wrongly believed that ACA's map from AASHTO showing 50-mile-wide corridors = a correct assertion that state routes in these corridors can be promoted to proposed national routes. Cooler heads agree: they most certainly cannot. There seem to be a tiny handful of state routes that state-produced DOT documents assert should become USBR #xy or are recommended to be promoted to a national route in the USBR corridor and in those few cases, an additional ncn=proposed tag may be added to the existing network=rcn + ref = state_route_# tags on the route relation. Where and whether to do this remains a fluid decision, Kerry has a finger directly on this pulse. Due to slow OCM rendering, Kerry and I also use the (rendered daily) lonvia maps produced by Sarah Hoffman (see http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5lat=36.57lon=-93.53hill=0.375route=1) as a more up-to-date visualization tool. Right about now, that map comes closer to displaying a reasonable facsimile of national bicycle routes in the USA (though state/regional routes remain under construction). For better or worse, the waymarkedtrails.org map does not respect proposed tags, it only shows ACTUAL national, state and local routes (and its zoom levels to do so are different than OCM's). This allows two renderers to be used for two purposes: Sarah's waymarkedtrails.org renderer can be a (substantially closer to correct) representation of REAL bicycle routes, while Andy's OCM renderer can be a fair representation of REAL + PROPOSED bicycle routes. (If only OCM refreshed tiles a bit more often!). I write this to show what careful, polite collaboration between somebody familiar with on-the-ground semantics (Kerry) and somebody familiar with the syntax of OSM/OCM/rendering (me) can do together to promote harmony, allowing for better visualization of wide-area bicycle routing. Bicycle routing, especially at state and national levels, involves coordination among large numbers of people, requires public process, and takes months and years. OSM stands ready to accommodate with rich syntax and multiple renderings that correctly visually communicate to relevant parties a reasonably current state of these endeavors. Kerry and I will likely continue to coordinate OSM efforts on bicycle routes at the state level, growing additional OSM community. So, there is still substantial work ahead. Though it is only partial for now, and we expect it to become much better in the future, I wish to offer this little slice of effort as a true success story for OSM: from a strong urge to promote more fresh and accurate wide-area bicycle route mapping (in the USA and worldwide), OSM, in its wonderful richness and with multiple renderings, delivers. Nice cloud we have here, OSM! 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
Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, ** ** You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” ** ** That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” ** ** I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. ** ** Kerry Irons ** ** ** ** *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] *Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags ** ** ** ** On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote: Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing sites. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Well then, we can use them to hide the parking lot symbols in DC. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 15:11, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.com wrote: Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote: Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing sites. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. earlier In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). Since one point of view classified the solution under a rendering problem (showing corridor_width), the chances of the OpenCycleMap maintainer updating his style for a specific limited use case in the US are near zero. I think a great solution would be to do this in Openlayers / Leaflet and implement the corridor_width attribute when defining and showing the proposed routes. That could be hosted on any simple web host as KML; no database or PostGreSQL needs to be set up. And this could be implemented quite rapidly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
This would be an acceptable compromise. On Jun 14, 2013 6:00 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. earlier In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). Since one point of view classified the solution under a rendering problem (showing corridor_width), the chances of the OpenCycleMap maintainer updating his style for a specific limited use case in the US are near zero. I think a great solution would be to do this in Openlayers / Leaflet and implement the corridor_width attribute when defining and showing the proposed routes. That could be hosted on any simple web host as KML; no database or PostGreSQL needs to be set up. And this could be implemented quite rapidly. __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://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
Paul you're still ignoring the fact that the only one proposing these routes is an OSM mapper. They aren't being proposed by state, regional, or local bike advocates or by state, regional, or local government agencies. And you're ignoring the fact that the consensus of comments from other OSM members agrees that an OSM mapper creating a map does not constitute proposing a US Bicycle Route. You are the only one arguing for this. Kerry Irons -Original Message- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:53 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until it's official, including the route number. Especially since as far as I'm aware, only USBR 76 and possibly USBR 1 has a name. On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote: Herere just some of the comments from OSM members: I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of previewing a possible path. (In which case, like everything else of this sort: admin boundaries, etc., proposed cycle routes could just be stored and rendered outside of the OSM database on an OpenProposedCycleMap.org rendering.) ___ 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
Paul, You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM would be an important advocacy tool. That does not sound at all like mapping reality. I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I've personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don't give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM's goal was to accurately describe the world but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
I agree with you. Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 6/7/13 8:44 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon. They are area features which may someday become linear. That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at all. i think they can go in when they can be represented as a relation containing connected ways, and not before that. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: It sounds like you want to add a feature to OSM/OCM so that the corridors can be shown. From a mapping standpoint, I don’t see what this accomplishes since the AASHTO map was created at the “50,000 foot level” and putting corridors on OSM/OCM simply supplies that level of fuzziness to another map. It also provides for better, more precise visualization of what's in that corridor, which would be an important advocacy tool. It seems like you are going to resist removing these routes at any turn.** ** I've yet to hear a compelling reason to remove them. I'd love to hear it if you have it, but it makes your life harder or the renderer doesn't show it right really doesn't qualify. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM's goal was to accurately describe the world but you are saying it is also advocacy. As far as compelling reason to remove them let's try this: There are no proposed routes for USBR 21, 25, 80, or 84 in these states. The only proposed routes are the opinion of one OSM mapper who is now banned. No state, regional, or local bicycle advocacy group or governmental agency is working on any of these routes. Is it your opinion that any OSM mapper can/should propose routes for the US Bicycle Route System free of consultation or communication with any other party? You said before that I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus on removing these from OSM. I think what you really meant was that you strongly disagree with the consensus. You are the only one arguing to keep them in the system. Here're just some of the comments from OSM members: === Greg Troxel said: We shouldn't be doing original research in determining things, but rather documenting things that exist. If there are signs and a published route, that's obviously a route. If an organization that is generally viewed as having the authority to determine a route has published a proposal (which is stronger than 6 what-if scenarios), then that's fair to be in as proposed. But as I understand the situation, a cognizant organization has published a target corridor, not a proposed route. Nathan Mills said 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. Andy Allen said: over-enthusiastic mappers are making up their own proposals directly into OSM. And they should only be proposed by an organization that has relevant authority to create a route, usually this is clear for a given country. Alex Barth said: I would propose to remove them then. And If that's the situation it seems we have a clear cut case at hand: the routes in question just aren't `proposed`. Richard Welty said if the route doesn't exist yet as a firm line on the map, it has no business being in the core OSM database. === Paul, show me the comments (besides yours) that support keeping these routes in OSM. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:45 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: It sounds like you want to add a feature to OSM/OCM so that the corridors can be shown. From a mapping standpoint, I don't see what this accomplishes since the AASHTO map was created at the 50,000 foot level and putting corridors on OSM/OCM simply supplies that level of fuzziness to another map. It also provides for better, more precise visualization of what's in that corridor, which would be an important advocacy tool. It seems like you are going to resist removing these routes at any turn. I've yet to hear a compelling reason to remove them. I'd love to hear it if you have it, but it makes your life harder or the renderer doesn't show it right really doesn't qualify. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote: Here’re just some of the comments from OSM members: I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of previewing a possible path. (In which case, like everything else of this sort: admin boundaries, etc, proposed cycle routes could just be stored and rendered outside of the OSM database on an OpenProposedCycleMap.org rendering.) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until it's official, including the route number. Especially since as far as I'm aware, only USBR 76 and possibly USBR 1 has a name. On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote: Here’re just some of the comments from OSM members: I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of previewing a possible path. (In which case, like everything else of this sort: admin boundaries, etc, proposed cycle routes could just be stored and rendered outside of the OSM database on an OpenProposedCycleMap.org rendering.) __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://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
stevea stevea...@softworkers.com writes: 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. That makes sense to me. [trying to stick to OSM issues] I think the essence of what's troublesome is that 'proposed' lacks a crisp definition. We should be trying to represent reality in the map (whether or not that annoys people). But there's a continuum from one guy in a bar saying hey, we should make a route here (obviously does not cont) to the last 100-page formal application by some government or community body to the official designating body, with the weight of government and community behind it, and which has some significant likelihood of being approved (which obviously does count). The middle is tricky. Given that, I think it's only really useful to discuss whether any specific route merits a proposed tag, with the facts of that situation. pgpCVOHowCmGT.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
On 6/7/13 9:59 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: Given that, I think it's only really useful to discuss whether any specific route merits a proposed tag, with the facts of that situation. we probably want to see this as a life cycle issue relating to any sort of highway/route situation, not just these cycle routes, and consider what should/can trigger mapping. proposals start out vaguely. at some point, they become concrete enough, e.g. there are actual maps from an official body saying where the proposal runs. at this point, it's ok to map a proposed route, but there are things to consider: 1) concrete proposals can be altered over time 2) even very concrete proposals can be altered in response to new issues 3) proposals may die without being built here is a non-bicycle route example. I 687 was proposed in the Albany NY area in the 50s and 60s. the following link shows official maps from 1957 and 1967. neither was built; the flurry of really bad highway proposals for the area ended in the 1970s, and worst ones were never built. the only thing built for i 687 was the ramp on i 90 which feeds into an office park today: http://www.capitalhighways.8m.com/highways/687i/ additionally, routes can be fluid as anyone who has been doing this for a while should know; highway designations get shifted to different roads more often than we tend to think about. so 1) proposals should not be mapped until they achieve a real measure of concreteness 2) we need to be aware that proposals can shapeshift even after this point 3) once the route is official rather than longer proposed, it can still be moved if the authorities so desire 4) we need to recognize that proposals and even sometimes official routes can go away. this is where i'm confused by the discussion, because i think Kerry is arguing that the vague proposals where there is only a wide corridor should be removed, and i think that's a sound request. the ones that are more concrete can probably stay. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Again Paul I don't understand what you are saying: you state if AASHTO is already referring to them in proposals. AASHTO has prepared a corridor plan. AASHTO does not develop routes. Route development takes place at the state level by the DOTs, advocates, or other agencies and this is always done in partnership with the respective DOTs. The DOTs are the only ones who can submit an application to AASHTO for USBR route designation so there is no point in proposing a route if you are not in communication with the DOTs or at least with the project team developing a route. The OSM routes I am asking to be removed are strictly the opinion of a now-banned OSM mapper. That I can find this person had no communication with local, regional, or state level advocates or government agencies. He took existing state bike routes and entered them into OSM as proposed USBRs and tagged them with USBR numbers. Does this meet your definition of a proposed route Paul? I am not familiar with the details of all the options for placing a route in OSM but I don't see how you can put a route into OSM without choosing specific roads. And just for reference, neither the OpenCycleMap key nor the OpenStreetMap key shows the meaning of the dashed line as proposed so there is no way for the general public to know that these routes are in OSM/OCM as proposed. It would be great if OSM mappers would communicate with state project teams when an actual route development project is underway so that any map they generate would be in synch with the project. I would suggest that OSM mappers contact Adventure Cycling and we can put them in contact with project teams. Otherwise the OSM mapping looks more like advocacy mapping where an individual mapper is putting out their ideas of a USBR route, not connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:20 PM To: KerryIrons Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: Again Paul I don’t understand what you are saying: you state “if AASHTO is already referring to them in proposals.” AASHTO has prepared a corridor plan. AASHTO does not develop routes. Route development takes place at the state level by the DOTs, advocates, or other agencies and this is always done in partnership with the respective DOTs. The DOTs are the only ones who can submit an application to AASHTO for USBR route designation so there is no point in “proposing” a route if you are not in communication with the DOTs or at least with the project team developing a route. [moved a paragraph to better frame my response] I am not familiar with the details of all the options for placing a route in OSM but I don’t see how you can put a route into OSM without choosing specific roads. And just for reference, neither the OpenCycleMap key nor the OpenStreetMap key shows the meaning of the dashed line as “proposed” so there is no way for the general public to know that these routes are in OSM/OCM as proposed. [and again] It would be great if OSM mappers would communicate with state project teams when an actual route development project is underway so that any map they generate would be in synch with the project. I would suggest that OSM mappers contact Adventure Cycling and we can put them in contact with project teams. Otherwise the OSM mapping looks more like “advocacy mapping” where an individual mapper is putting out their ideas of a USBR route, not connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR. I don't think we disagree for when proposals get past their infancy. Where we do seem to have a disconnect is on corridor proposals, where it hasn't narrowed down beyond a broad corridor. This still sounds like a rendering issue, not a tagging issue, since the center of the corridor is presumably close to or congruent with the routes tagged in this case. In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). The way I understand it, the crux of the problem you're pointing out with the situation is that the route relations in network=ncn state=proposed are too specific. So, let's address the margin of error issue. How can we resolve this amicably so such proposals can be mapped? The OSM routes I am asking to be removed are strictly the opinion of a now-banned OSM mapper. That I can find this person had no communication with local, regional, or state level advocates or government agencies. He took existing state bike routes and entered them into OSM as proposed USBRs and tagged them with USBR numbers. Does this meet your definition of a “proposed” route Paul? Now, anybody who has been following the situation with NE2 for the last couple years is probably going to be picking up their jaws when I say this, but I don't think he was operating entirely in a vacuum, based on the publicly available information about these proposed corridors in the areas I follow (since bicycle tagging is something I do try to help keep straight in the areas I follow, odds are I would have been one of the first to raise a red flag). Not every edit needs to come to a consensus, but disputes do need to come to something reasonably close to a consensus. In my view, this would be one such dispute, and I'd rather not see the solution be let's tag for the renderer. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon. They are area features which may someday become linear. That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at all. Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: Again Paul I don’t understand what you are saying: you state “if AASHTO is already referring to them in proposals.” AASHTO has prepared a corridor plan. AASHTO does not develop routes. Route development takes place at the state level by the DOTs, advocates, or other agencies and this is always done in partnership with the respective DOTs. The DOTs are the only ones who can submit an application to AASHTO for USBR route designation so there is no point in “proposing” a route if you are not in communication with the DOTs or at least with the project team developing a route. [moved a paragraph to better frame my response] I am not familiar with the details of all the options for placing a route in OSM but I don’t see how you can put a route into OSM without choosing specific roads. And just for reference, neither the OpenCycleMap key nor the OpenStreetMap key shows the meaning of the dashed line as “proposed” so there is no way for the general public to know that these routes are in OSM/OCM as proposed. [and again] It would be great if OSM mappers would communicate with state project teams when an actual route development project is underway so that any map they generate would be in synch with the project. I would suggest that OSM mappers contact Adventure Cycling and we can put them in contact with project teams. Otherwise the OSM mapping looks more like “advocacy mapping” where an individual mapper is putting out their ideas of a USBR route, not connected with actual efforts to develop and designate a USBR. I don't think we disagree for when proposals get past their infancy. Where we do seem to have a disconnect is on corridor proposals, where it hasn't narrowed down beyond a broad corridor. This still sounds like a rendering issue, not a tagging issue, since the center of the corridor is presumably close to or congruent with the routes tagged in this case. In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). The way I understand it, the crux of the problem you're pointing out with the situation is that the route relations in network=ncn state=proposed are too specific. So, let's address the margin of error issue. How can we resolve this amicably so such proposals can be mapped? The OSM routes I am asking to be removed are strictly the opinion of a now-banned OSM mapper. That I can find this person had no communication with local, regional, or state level advocates or government agencies. He took existing state bike routes and entered them into OSM as proposed USBRs and tagged them with USBR numbers. Does this meet your definition of a “proposed” route Paul? Now, anybody who has been following the situation with NE2 for the last couple years is probably going to be picking up their jaws when I say this, but I don't think he was operating entirely in a vacuum, based on the publicly available information about these proposed corridors in the areas I follow (since bicycle tagging is something I do try to help keep straight in the areas I follow, odds are I would have been one of the first to raise a red flag). Not every edit needs to come to a consensus, but disputes do need to come to something reasonably close to a consensus. In my view, this would be one such dispute, and I'd rather not see the solution be let's tag for the renderer. ___ 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
On 6/7/13 8:44 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon. They are area features which may someday become linear. That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at all. i think they can go in when they can be represented as a relation containing connected ways, and not before that. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
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 m...@1ec5.org Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ 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 frede...@remote.org 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
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 frede...@remote.org 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
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 frede...@remote.org 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
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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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 frede...@remote.org writes: An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we usually try to have data where someone
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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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 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
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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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 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
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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
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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
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 mailto:irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netirons54vor...@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
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 ian.d...@gmail.com 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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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 irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: ** 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
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. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
2013/6/5 KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net 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. I am mostly not mapping in the US, 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. If the tagging is clear, general renderings (or other data consumers) can decide whether they would want to display these proposals or simply omit them. 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. Yes, it is quite common that there are variations on the way from a proposed way to a built way / signposted route. There is no problem with this, you simply update the data in OSM when modifications are applied. 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
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
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
This creates major issues for many routes in the US, especially bike routes, US Historic 66, US Historic 30, and US Historic 666, which due to regional significance, unique and interesting signage, or both, frequently are missing trailblazers, confirmation signage or way finding signage in part or in full on account of theft. ODOT just replaced US Historic 66 1926-1932 trailblazers and confirmation signs, I expect all of them to be stolen by July. On Jun 5, 2013 12:21 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 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-ushttp://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
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 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
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
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
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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
On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 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
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 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 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
Thomas Colson thomas_col...@nps.gov 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
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
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote: 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
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com 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
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=37layers=Clon=-122zoom=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
What's the source for this system? Is it widely adopted? On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com 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=37layers=Clon=-122zoom=**12http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37layers=Clon=-122zoom=12 SteveA California __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us