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.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
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
