On 2014-06-01 10:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Generally in the UK we only map proposed NCN routes when
a) we have some personal knowledge of them, and
b) the route has a serious likelihood of being signposted in the next
couple of years
This is pretty much the standard for mapping network=ncn routes in the
U.S., now that the unofficial ACA routes have been demoted to network=rcn.
However, there are other proposed routes in the local area where there is no
particular action underway at present to find funding or to fix issues
identified with the route. For example, NCN 536 is a proposed route from
Banbury (part of my patch) to Northampton, but: no funding has been
identified, some physical works will be required before it can open, and the
"flow" isn't currently deemed a priority. It's very unlikely indeed to open
in the next two years, and consequently it isn't mapped on OSM.
Steve wasn't talking about proposed routes at all: USBRs 1, 10, 36, 37,
and 50 are officially approved routes. There's nothing to "open", though
the signage situation varies from state to state. AASHTO designation
doesn't come with a deadline for signage, but the state DOTs didn't go
through the trouble of getting local and national approval just to sit
on these designations. And when the signs do go up, we can be assured
that they'll go up along the officially approved routes.
On occasion, mapping a proposed route can be actively dangerous and
misleading. Sometimes a proposed NCN route will follow a busy road or rough
terrain, or cross private land; fixing this will be one of the "to-dos"
before the route can be opened. Showing it on a map, even as a dotted line,
can encourage cyclists to venture into unsuitable conditions. (Yes, in
theory "caveat emptor", but I have encountered people who have been misled
by such proposed routes showing on a map.)
The routes were approved along public roads in their current condition,
so it isn't a matter of waiting for rights of way, bike trails, or lane
reconfigurations. [1] In fact, most of the local jurisdictions in Ohio
only supported USBR 50 because all they have to do is accept
state-provided signage on their locally-maintained roads and trails.
(They're all worried about cuts to state funding for local governments.)
[1] In a few limited cases, the route log notes ongoing road
construction along the intended route and provides a detour route. I
think those cases should be handled just like standard construction detours.
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
