<div dir="ltr">Well, this begs the question a bit...what's the difference between chasing down an estimated proposal and tagging it as such, and the extremely vague PDF that's out there? I'm thinking the tagging makes for a clearer understanding on where the route might go, and I believe adding the appropriate disclaimer to the proposed route would be a mitigating factor on the "end run" concern. I believe Richard at Sustrans is ultimately driving the same point.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, KerryIrons <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Paul,<br>
<br>
The challenge is between wanting to move the USBR process forward with a<br>
push from having a proposed route "out there" and the risk of push back when<br>
some official basically says "What the heck is this?" We have had this<br>
exact experience in Michigan during the development (now official) of USBR<br>
35 so it is not just a theoretical possibility. The fine points of<br>
"proposed" are easily lost if someone suspects they are being left out of<br>
the loop or experiencing an end run.<br>
<br>
The way the process works is to develop a proposed route and then take it to<br>
the involved communities, counties, trail owners, and DOTs involved. As we<br>
gain their concurrence those pieces of the route become firm and can be<br>
publicized to good purpose - this can push adjacent jurisdictions to get on<br>
board. We finally got one road commission to agree to the route when one of<br>
their members said "Everyone else has approved. What's our excuse?" Much<br>
as we would like it otherwise, local politics are very much part of getting<br>
a USBR designated.<br>
<br>
We would like to harness the enthusiasm shown in putting these routes on OSM<br>
to directly help with the designation process. I became aware of these<br>
routes being on OSM when one of the advocates working within a state<br>
contacted ACA and said "What's going on here?" We don't need that kind of<br>
confusion. We have talked about the need for a user-friendly mapping<br>
technology through which we can easily develop and share proposed USBRs and<br>
have been using Google Maps for that. Perhaps OSM is a better tool and that<br>
is why we would like to work with the OSM mapper community to sort that out.<br>
<br>
<br>
My outreach is not an attempt to be adversarial but rather to channel our<br>
efforts. We are always short on resources and we don't want to see<br>
duplication of effort or confusion result from independent projects that are<br>
not in communication.<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>]<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:35 AM<br>
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list<br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA<br>
<br>
What I mean to say is these were likely mapped with the understanding that<br>
these routes are subject to change before they're official and on the<br>
ground. The ones I've come across have been tagged as such. While I<br>
understand your concern, I believe you may be putting too much weight into<br>
the significance. I encourage ACA to work with OSM to get such routes<br>
mapped on the preferred corridor with a note that these routes can and<br>
likely will move up to 50 miles either way in their final form. Doing so<br>
can be useful for providing visualization and mustering support for such<br>
routes on a much more concise and clear scale than previously available. It<br>
may be unwise to take quite such an adversarial approach for an effort that<br>
appears to have complementary goals.<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:30 PM, KerryIrons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
Paul,<br>
<br>
The process for proposing a US Bicycle Route is well defined. It does not<br>
consist of people simply putting a route on a public map system like<br>
OpenStreetMaps/OpenCycleMaps. There are local road agency approvals<br>
required and there is a risk of significant backlash when these agencies<br>
perceive that routes are being proposed without their involvement. The<br>
routes as they appear on OpenStreetMaps/OpenCycleMaps are not approximate<br>
but rather are on specific state and local roads.<br>
<br>
I have been contacted by the person who put these routes into OpenSteetMaps<br>
and will sort things out with him.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kerry<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 3:19 PM<br>
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list<br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA<br>
<br>
If it's showing up with an "under construction" or "proposed" status, it's<br>
subject to change and there for approximate visualization in those cases.<br>
If you'd like to propose a better way to handle that situation, I'm sure<br>
the folks involved would love to hear it!<br>
<br>
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM, KerryIrons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
All,<br>
<br>
I am heavily involved in the development of US Bicycle Routes (see<br>
<a href="http://www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs" target="_blank">www.adventurecycling.org/usbrs</a>) and it has come to my attention that<br>
OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap have proposed maps for US Bicycle Routes 21, 25,<br>
80, and 84 in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA. The routes are shown as dashed lines<br>
but with the USBR numbers on them. At the same time USBR 76 is shown as<br>
proposed but in fact it has officially been designated in KY.<br>
<br>
As of now there are only proposed corridors for these routes (50 mile wide<br>
areas where a route could be developed) and so showing specific proposed<br>
routes is beyond the current status of any of these USBRs. It could be<br>
argued that USBR 25 will likely follow the Adventure Cycling Underground<br>
Railroad route but none of the states involved have applied for designation<br>
of these routes with AASHTO, the official body in charge of the USBR system.<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to get in contact with the mapper(s) who put these routes into<br>
OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap and clarify this. We are always looking for<br>
enthusiastic folks who want to work on the USBR system but in this case<br>
putting detailed routes on maps is a source of confusion.<br>
<br>
Please contact me at your convenience if you have been involved in putting<br>
these routes into OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kerry Irons<br>
Adventure Cycling Association<br>
<a href="mailto:kirons@adventurecycling.org">kirons@adventurecycling.org</a><br>
<a href="tel:989-631-6368" value="+19896316368">989-631-6368</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>