Hi, with Kerry' clarification about numbering and the use of state=proposed we would arrive in the US at the same approach that we have pragmatically applied in Italy to the future national cycle routes, which are numbered and being progressively defined by FIAB (the Italian Friends of the Bicycle Association), which in Italy acts also as representative of the European Cyclists Federation and in that role also defines the Italian Eurovelo routes. The proposed routes are being inserted when a detailed route proposal exists. When signposting takes place we insert the signposted, final routes as new relations, replacing the earlier proposed routes. Usually this involves detail changes, but normally no gross route changes and the numbering remains. If I am not mistaken, the approaches in the US and in Italy are similar, as no central government body is responsible for the assignment of route numbering (differently, I believe, from the UK) and cyclists' associations take on the role of defining routes and supervising the implementation.
The problem of disappearing signs exists also in Italy, even if the cycle route does not have such a famous reference as Route 66. Volker FIAB Padova Italy On 6 June 2013 00:40, <talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Richard Fairhurst) > 2. Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Brad Neuhauser) > 3. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Martin Koppenhoefer) > 4. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Frederik Ramm) > 5. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Paul Johnson) > 6. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (Martin Koppenh?fer) > 7. Re: Removing US Bicycle Route tags (KerryIrons) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 05:21:23 -0700 (PDT) > From: Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: <1370434883115-5764067.p...@n5.nabble.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Kerry Irons wrote: > > Nathan, > > [...] > > Please advise when you will remove these tags. > > "Nathan" (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on > account of his "inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing > project": http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347 > > It'll therefore fall to the rest of the US community to fix this (assuming > the community agrees!). > > cheers > Richard > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-US-Bicycle-Route-tags-tp5764061p5764067.html > Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:24:44 -0500 > From: Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com> > To: KerryIrons <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> > Cc: Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>, "talk-us@openstreetmap.org" > <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: > <CAJA6SWaxXK-E48y+U9tKk13mY= > pv172pwntuv_js_awycuh...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Kerry, > > NE2 has been indefinitely banned (see > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html ) so > if you want these changed, have at it. > > Cheers, Brad > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, KerryIrons wrote: > > > Nathan, > > > > 3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags > in > > the Midwest. The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle > Routes > > should be tagged in OSM. > > > > Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not been > > approved by AASHTO it is incorrect to have them tagged in OpenStreetMaps. > > There are proposed routes for 35 and 50 in Indiana and part of 50 in Ohio > > but since those routes have not been approved by AASHTO the routes are > > subject to change during the implementation process. There are no > specific > > route proposals for 21, 25, 80, and 84. Only 20 and 35 in Michigan have > > been approved. > > > > Please advise when you will remove these tags. > > > > > > > > Kerry Irons > > Adventure Cycling Association. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130605/e134824d/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:29:19 +0200 > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > To: KerryIrons <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> > Cc: Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>, osm > <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: > < > cabptjtd+dcyhhocs0ey7xtppf8xvgjnxbgp-gwleomfz5ag...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130605/15c85891/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:20:13 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: <51af734d.7040...@remote.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > 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" > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:21:35 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: > < > campm96qhuhdpn21yedlla7cexx8h6wwdvtjt76p7ahch-ku...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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 $.02 though. > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33" > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us< > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130605/56ac794d/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:50:10 +0200 > From: Martin Koppenh?fer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > To: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > Cc: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org" <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: <2912ccd6-9741-4430-97db-9e74b32b9...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > > > The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it > can be mapped - if not, then not. > > > Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable > on paper as well. See administrative borders for instance, they are only > very punctually surveyable. I agree that proposed features are somewhat of > an edge case. Personally I would only map them if they had some particular > significance (e.g. they are in the local media for some reason, there is a > broader interest). > > Cheers, > Martin > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:40:10 -0400 > From: "KerryIrons" <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> > To: "'Frederik Ramm'" <frede...@remote.org>, > <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > Message-ID: <007a01ce623d$a363d900$ea2b8b00$@sbcglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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 > > > End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 67, Issue 11 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
