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 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 > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
