Paul you're still ignoring the fact that the only one "proposing" these routes is an OSM mapper. They aren't being proposed by state, regional, or local bike advocates or by state, regional, or local government agencies. And you're ignoring the fact that the consensus of comments from other OSM members agrees that an OSM mapper creating a map does not constitute "proposing" a US Bicycle Route.
You are the only one arguing for this. Kerry Irons -----Original Message----- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:53 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until it's official, including the route number. Especially since as far as I'm aware, only USBR 76 and possibly USBR 1 has a name. On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote: Herere just some of the comments from OSM members: I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of previewing a possible path. (In which case, like everything else of this sort: admin boundaries, etc., proposed cycle routes could just be stored and rendered outside of the OSM database on an OpenProposedCycleMap.org rendering.) _______________________________________________ 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
