On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> 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