So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM's goal was to "accurately describe the world" but you are saying it is also advocacy.
As far as "compelling reason to remove them" let's try this: There are no proposed routes for USBR 21, 25, 80, or 84 in these states. The only "proposed" routes are the opinion of one OSM mapper who is now banned. No state, regional, or local bicycle advocacy group or governmental agency is working on any of these routes. Is it your opinion that any OSM mapper can/should propose routes for the US Bicycle Route System free of consultation or communication with any other party? You said before that "I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus" on removing these from OSM. I think what you really meant was that you strongly disagree with the consensus. You are the only one arguing to keep them in the system. Here're just some of the comments from OSM members: =========================================== Greg Troxel said: "We shouldn't be doing original research in determining things, but rather documenting things that exist. If there are signs and a published route, that's obviously a route. If an organization that is generally viewed as having the authority to determine a route has published a proposal (which is stronger than 6 what-if scenarios), then that's fair to be in as proposed. But as I understand the situation, a cognizant organization has published a target corridor, not a proposed route." Nathan Mills said "On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR number or no. Andy Allen said: "over-enthusiastic mappers are making up their own proposals directly into OSM." And "they should only be proposed by an organization that has relevant authority to create a route, usually this is clear for a given country." Alex Barth said: "I would propose to remove them then." And "If that's the situation it seems we have a clear cut case at hand: the routes in question just aren't `proposed`." Richard Welty said "if the route doesn't exist yet as a firm line on the map, it has no business being in the core OSM database. =========================================== Paul, show me the comments (besides yours) that support keeping these routes in OSM. Kerry Irons Adventure Cycling Association From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:45 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: It sounds like you want to add a feature to OSM/OCM so that the corridors can be shown. From a mapping standpoint, I don't see what this accomplishes since the AASHTO map was created at the "50,000 foot level" and putting corridors on OSM/OCM simply supplies that level of fuzziness to another map. It also provides for better, more precise visualization of what's in that corridor, which would be an important advocacy tool. It seems like you are going to resist removing these routes at any turn. I've yet to hear a compelling reason to remove them. I'd love to hear it if you have it, but "it makes your life harder" or "the renderer doesn't show it right" really doesn't qualify.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us