On 2014-05-31 14:06, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should be following the import guidelines.
In the past, on-road bike routes were typically advertised via maps and annual guidebooks rather than reassurance markers. The U.S. Bike Route System is an official attempt to move beyond dead trees in favor of signage. State DOTs often post "FUTURE" shields years or even decades before an Interstate route becomes official. But no DOT has the budget to lavish that kind of attention on bicyclists. :-)
The fact that these new routes currently have no signage certainly raises the bar for verification. Fortunately, primary sources like [1] are much less prone to data entry errors than actual databases. And unlike unofficial touring routes, there's nothing ephemeral about USBRs: any route change requires the written approval of an AASHTO special committee, as with an Interstate. If nothing else, authoritative sources can help to eliminate guesswork, which is one step towards ground truth.
While we're waiting for signs to go up, the good news is that some states have opted to primarily route USBRs along existing off-road bike paths that we've already mapped through some combination of GPS tracks, local knowledge, and aerial tracing. The cycleways themselves can be verified on the ground. We just want to add the cycleway to an additional route relation. Detailed route logs would only be necessary for filling in the less obvious parts of the route.
I've never gone through the formal import process -- for a lack of sources, not compliance -- but it seems to me that the guidelines are written as a defense against fly-by-night dumps of poorly vetted data. I'm sure anyone with raw bike route data would want to comply with the guidelines, but what about other kinds of sources? Many of the steps simply don't apply.
So far, I've cobbled together a relation for USBR 50 in Ohio along well-known trails, based on descriptions in news reports and recorded village council meetings. Now that the route has been approved by AASHTO, it'd be very tempting to fill in the gaps based on the official route log. [2] Of course, I can't do that without ODOT's prior permission, in case of copyright concerns. But to give you a sense of how far removed this work is from a conventional import, I plan to use nothing more than iD or maybe Potlatch, adding lots of water towers and ballfields along the way.
Steve is championing a piece of transportation infrastructure that could become a showcase for OSM's versatility but that currently needs a good deal of work. The USBRs are an opportunity for the OSM community to start productive relationships with DOTs and advocacy groups. We need more WikiProjects like it.
[1] <http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20Report%20May%2029%202014.docx> [2] <http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1176>
-- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
