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 > rridor-plan/ The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route > could be defined. Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route. On the > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that > path. A corridor is a concept for future development of a route. It is > not > a route. > Nobody expects a proposed route to be the final route on the ground. Again, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "proposed" on exclusively your part. As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing > the > actual work. Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does, > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time. Spending hours > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever > heard > about it is not a good way to spend time either. > Given how long you've been doing this, I'm surprised there's this one detail that most people in the cycling community gets already: That's life. And it's what every state goes through with their cycling community with state bike routes. It's what every city goes through with it's local networks. Welcome to the world of transportation advocacy. > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of > various USBR project teams across the US. There is no point in creating > extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers. Nobody's putting out any information that isn't already on the table, though. I really can't help but to think this is more of a situation of the ACA wanting to monopolize the process, which is something I know Oregon DOT has criticized the ACA of in the past. Maybe a little less ego and a little more cooperation is in order.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
