> Kevin Kenny wrote: >> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails - >> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated >> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even >> relatively trivial stuff like >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600.(although >> that certainly meets Richard's five-mile threshold).
Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > Ok. I've just finished a pass through CONUS relationising pretty much all > the significant leisure trails I could find for which there weren't already > route relations. HDYC is telling me that "recently" I've added 334 bike > routes - I'm not sure what period that covers but it sounds about right. > > By and large I've tagged them with network=lcn - there's certainly a case > for upgrading some to =rcn but I'll leave that to those with local > knowledge. > > There's a bit of work still to do on smaller local trails that also form > part of a longer route - e.g. parts of the Bay Trail, or the East Coast > Greenway. It would be good to have a distinct C&O Canal Trail relation over > and above the USBRS 50 relation, for example. Having entered one (temporal) version of the ECG (full disclosure, Softworkers.com did so professionally), I agree with Richard that there are additional "smaller local trails that form part of a longer route." Often these are spurs OFF OF the "main" route, although in other instances they superimpose at a different level (e.g. an lcn which shares infrastructure with an ncn). Obviously it is important to "get the level right" when entering these, including entering two route relations if that is a reality in the world (an ncn AND an lcn). The USA has firm methodologies by which we use these three (barely four, if you count international) levels. The details are in our wikis: https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks (which links to https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System , our national / ncn network). Please note that at a national level, ONLY numbered USBRs should be entered, and the process to do so is quite well-established. Exceptionally (because of seriously large scope or importance) there are now also four "quasi-national" routes (up from two originally), which have emerged over the long term with wide (and sometimes fragile) consensus. At state (rcn) and local (lcn) levels (the latter can include city-level and county-level), OSM consensus differs slightly state by state as to what "qualifies" to enter, but the bar is fairly high for all. Briefly, if it is a government-sponsored route network, enter it, especially if signed. For what appear to be "bike club" networks, think twice (or thrice) before entering these: it is not usually the case that these are bona fide route networks, rather they are what a private group considers "good rides" and there are bazillions of these with which we do NOT wish to clutter the map. Well-established rail trails which allow or are specifically designated for cyclists DO get a route relation (and please start, as Richard did, with network=lcn). Also, there are proprietary routes (like ACA's routes, which are firmly discouraged from being entered as they are copyrighted), these should not be entered. However, there is a tenet in OSM that "if you ride the route and acquire the track as a GPX, you have established legal nexus as a Contributor to enter these data into OSM." If you do this, be careful that any name=* tag you enter is something you have permission to use, too. This can be tricky if you think about it (why ride a ride and then be prevented from entering it AND its name because you don't have permission to use its name?). However, simply "riding a ride" and then entering it as a route relation is highly discouraged: bicycle route relations really are meant to express government-sponsored routes, rail trails and rarely, "quasi-private" routes (neither government-sanctioned nor approved by AASHTO, but public data, usually signed with proprietary signage). There are state- (and even county-) level wikis which describe these "more regional" (or local) networks, California has at least four counties that I know of. If you enter these routes / networks, you are highly encouraged to find the right place in our wiki-universe to enter at least a blurb that they exist. Each and every state in the USA has a wiki and more and more of them are emerging to include a Bicycle Routes section. Please, build up these wiki with such routes / networks! As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are sponsored at a state-level: these are properly tagged rcn (regional generally means "state-level" in the USA). I don't know this for sure (Minh?) but I might imagine that the C&O Canal Trail over and above the USBR 50 relation might be properly tagged rcn instead of lcn. Such decisions are best determined with more-local consensus by Contributors who are familiar with the local / state statutes which define the route. The Bicycle_Networks wiki describe (MUTCD-standard) signage for NUMBERED routes which disambiguate the network-level tag that should be used. For routes which happen to be signed on-the-ground as non-governmental (non-MUTCD-standard signage), please consider these on a case-by-case basis, starting (as Richard did) at the local (lcn) level. If network=rcn is actually a better value, this is likely to emerge with strong consensus at a more-local (state) level within OSM. Thanks for improving bicycle routes and especially rail trails in the USA! SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
