<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Century Schoolbook";
panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>Paul I don’t understand what you are saying. You keep referring to “have it both ways” and “playing both sides of this coin.” It appears to be insinuating some sort of duplicitousness or nefarious behavior on the part of Adventure Cycling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>Adventure Cycling did not propose the USBR route numbers. The route numbering system and the corridor plan came from AASHTO. We had representation on the AASHTO Task Force but were only one of many members on that group. You say that trying to provide a clear message to local jurisdictions constitutes censorship. Based on most of the comments I have seen the OSM community has agreed that bicycle routes should not be tagged as USBRs if they are not USBRs. Do you disagree with that consensus?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>There is no federal funding for signing USBRs and there never has been. Blaming Adventure Cycling for not securing funding that does not exist seems unfair. We (and many other national level advocates) did manage to get language inserted into a draft Transportation Bill but then the 2010 election happened and federal funds for bicycling were cut significantly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>The MUTCD is not the jurisdiction of Adventure Cycling, and they are the ones who came up with the new USBR sign. All the state DOTs are part of AASHTO and have the ability to comment on new sign designs. There is often tension between states and national level sign design specifications, but Adventure Cycling played a minimal role in the new M1-9 sign design. You appear to blame Adventure Cycling for something in which we have no control.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>We are working closely with the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition in trying to get USBR 66 approved, as we are with New Mexico, Arizona, California, Missouri, and Illinois. We’ve had numerous conference calls and provided extensive information to OK (DOT and state level advocates) and have a good relationship with them. You seem to believe otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>Do you believe that putting maps in the public domain that represent the views and desires of individual mappers is a better approach to implementing USBRs than working with the ongoing project teams in the individual states? This appears to be your message. Adventure Cycling is trying to coordinate with those state level teams and you seem to view this as a power grab.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>Kerry Irons</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:16 AM<br><b>To:</b> OpenStreetMap talk-us list; Andy Allen<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, KerryIrons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p>Actually Paul, people have disagreed. There are those who have taken the position in this exchange that "Who does AASHTO think they are?" I and others have tried to clarify that.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>Then I have to wonder why ACA is playing both sides of this coin, by proposing these numbers, then trying to censor them when other people come across proposals.<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p>The fact that local jurisdictions are confused and distracted by the meaning of "proposed" means that we can reduce confusion by not tagging proposed routes with USBR numbers. It sounds like you want to blame those who are confused rather than help reduce the confusion. If we know from experience how best to approach local jurisdictions for their approval, why would we engage in behavior that makes more work in that process?<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>Maybe it's not the best approach, since ultimately you're trying to get the proposals retagged for one specific renderer. Rather than removing information that is useful for people working on the map or trying to follow these proposals, we need another tag that hints to renderers some sort of margin of error for proposed routes. Hopefully Andy Allen could chime in since he's maintaining the OpenCycleMap renderer.<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p>Adventure Cycling does not seek to monopolize the process, and there are a number of states that have proceeded in gaining USBR designation on their own. However they do come to Adventure Cycling for advice since few states can claim to be ‘experienced” in the process. I got involved in this because a state group came to me and asked what was going on with a bunch of USBRs tagged in their state on OSM about which they knew nothing. That does not reflect “a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘proposed’ on exclusively [my] part.”<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>You seem to think this sort of thing is just fine, but it creates headaches and extra work. Why you think it is OK that OSM would stimulate those headaches and extra work is confusing to me.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>We're ultimately on the same page here, but we're coming at this from differing approaches, and I can't help but to think the ACA's trying to have it both ways when it comes to proposed routes, particularly those still in the early stages.<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p><u>I</u> don’t know what you are referencing regarding Oregon. At this time Oregon has stated that their priorities lie with creating their own state routes rather than with the USBRS. We think we have a good working relationship with Oregon but you appear to have inside information. Please contact me off-list if you’re willing to share.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>My experience with the two ODOTs I've been in contact with:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Both Oregon and Oklahoma are open to the idea of USBRs.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's been a while since I've worked with Oregon but my impression from them is that they've found their ACA interactions to be along the lines of the ACA delivering edicts without providing any assistance for securing federal funding for installing and maintaining these routes (even for no-brainer, shovel-done, just-install-the-signs projects like the USBR 97 concurrency with the entire length of the Oregon Coast Bike Route). Oregon seems to have felt left out of the design process, since the USBR trailblazers are confusingly similar to Oregon State Route shields. They want to get it done, but need help, not just told what to do. They're already on board so quit selling; it's time to deliver on getting the money to make it happen, and Oregon's feeling the burn on that.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Oklahoma is positive to the idea, having just initiated it's first state bike route which is almost certainly 100% concurrent with USBR 66, but isn't sure how to get it off the ground (it's been official since last November for the length of Historic US 66 in Oklahoma except where State Highway 66 still extends, it takes that instead, except on segments where it takes a road with minimum speeds in which it's just unclear where it's ultimately going to land even now that it's official). This could probably be salvaged, but getting more than just the ACA involved and perhaps getting some transportation planning trade groups <i>in Oklahoma</i> would be a good start. Oklahoma's already sold on the tourism aspect and wants to make it happen.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ultimately, it feels like ACA bit off a little too much to do on their own, and really needs to get involved with more groups to encourage the dialogue, not snuff it out and keep it to themselves.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>