<div dir="ltr">See, that's the crux of the thing, though... firstly, be aware that NE2 was banned because he was pushing his agenda against the wishes of the community, and taking things off-list where things couldn't be discussed with the community, so you're just as guilty as he is right now with that request.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 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">Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers. This is the issue I<br>
raised back in March and the only issue of concern. I asked the person who<br>
did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not. I find subsequently<br>
that he has been banned. Steve All of California has agreed to help in<br>
removing those tags. Others who are interested in this issue can contact me<br>
off-list.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kerry Irons<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com">nelson@crynwr.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM<br>
To: KerryIrons<br>
Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags<br>
<br>
Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I don't see<br>
the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly, well, that's<br>
incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this thread -- are<br>
there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could look at?<br>
<br>
KerryIrons writes:<br>
> Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.<br>
><br>
> First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US<br>
Bicycle > Routes. AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal<br>
highways > in the US. There can be any number of state and local bicycle<br>
routes, > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO<br>
approves > designation.<br>
><br>
> The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state ><br>
department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve<br>
> proposed numbering. Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an ><br>
application) the route is officially a USBR. While AASHTO encourages ><br>
signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on ><br>
paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted. When a project<br>
> is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first<br>
> step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to<br>
that > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each<br>
route > section. There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on<br>
OSM but > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for<br>
the approval > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local<br>
jurisdiction level.<br>
><br>
> You can look at the USBR corridor plan at ><br>
<a href="http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co" target="_blank">www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co</a><br>
> rridor-plan/ The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a<br>
route > could be defined. Just because a corridor exists does not mean<br>
that any > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the<br>
route. On the > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is<br>
approved by AASHTO, a > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor<br>
exists but no route is > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor<br>
could be added along that > path. A corridor is a concept for future<br>
development of a route. It is not > a route.<br>
><br>
> It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that<br>
explains > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation. It is<br>
inaccurate and > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.<br>
As of now there > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are<br>
being developed.<br>
><br>
> As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I<br>
> would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of<br>
> getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing<br>
the > actual work. Spending hours explaining why a route is not going<br>
through a > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing<br>
that it does, > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.<br>
Spending hours > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they<br>
feel it is being > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map<br>
before they ever heard > about it is not a good way to spend time either.<br>
><br>
> My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of<br>
> various USBR project teams across the US. There is no point in creating<br>
> extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Kerry Irons<br>
> Adventure Cycling Association<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Greg Troxel [mailto:<a href="mailto:gdt@ir.bbn.com">gdt@ir.bbn.com</a>] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05,<br>
2013 7:02 PM > To: Frederik Ramm > Cc: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a> ><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags > > > Frederik Ramm<br>
<<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>> writes:<br>
><br>
> > An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we<br>
> > usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily > ><br>
check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are > ><br>
unlikely to be signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.<br>
><br>
> I see verifiability as having a broader sense. In the case of officially<br>
> proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the government ><br>
documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the route numbering<br>
> authority has in fact put the route into proposed status. That's ><br>
essentially what Kerry is talking about. That's beyond looking at signs, ><br>
but some things on the map aren't obvious from standing near them - official<br>
> names are a complicated mix of signs on the ground, meeting minutes from<br>
> naming authorities, 911 or tax databases, etc. To me, the point is that<br>
one > can determine an answer by observing evidence, and reasonable people<br>
can > discuss the total evidence and come to rough consensus.<br>
><br>
> > On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent<br>
> > insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain > ><br>
route has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually > ><br>
something that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be > > I<br>
don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the federal<br>
> bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers. A road is a US highway if it's<br>
> officially been designated, and the signs are expected to keep up with<br>
that > offiical designation. If there's a case where a road has been<br>
designated as > a US highway, and the locals know it, but there are no<br>
signs (Because > they've been stolen, or because there was no budget to put<br>
them up, or the > sign people are on strike, or they've all been knocked<br>
down in winter car > accidents, or whatever), then it's still proper to tag<br>
it as a US highway.<br>
><br>
> > that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then ><br>
> not.<br>
><br>
> I do agree that tagging a highway because one wishes that it were<br>
otherwise > is bogus. But as long as a local mapper is determing a form of<br>
reality by > relatively objective means, I don't see a problem.<br>
><br>
> > An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be<br>
> > mapped; > > I think there may be a bit of terminology confusion: Kerry<br>
seems to mean > "approved" as "approved by the numbering authority as a<br>
proposed route which > has not yet been constructed/signed". That's<br>
similar to "the government has > decided to extend I-101 on these 10 miles,<br>
but hasn't built it yet". So > either it's ok to show it, or we should<br>
remove all highway=proposed. But I > think it's useful to have<br>
highway=proposed, so that those who want can > render it. highway=proposed<br>
is still subject to crowdsourcing editing and > quality control, and should<br>
mean that the cognizant naming authority has > published a specific plan.<br>
><br>
> I think this is the crux of Kerry's point - proposed cycle routes only<br>
make > sense if the authority that controls the relevant ref namespace has<br>
actually > proposed them. So even from your verfiability concern<br>
viewpoint, I think if > people did as Kerry asked, there would be far fewer<br>
proposed routes in the > db, and all of them would be widely recognized as<br>
legitimately and actually > proposed.<br>
><br>
> > and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every right<br>
> > to be mapped.<br>
><br>
> This is similar to what would happen if someone put up "US 99" signs on<br>
> their little side street, just because they were in the mood and had signs<br>
> and a hammer and nails. That doesn't make it US 99 -- it's just simple ><br>
vandalism -- , if other evidence says it's not true. This is really the ><br>
same situation.<br>
><br>
> Now if the guerilla route is not in an official namespace, and the signs<br>
> persist, then I have no issue with it being mapped.<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>
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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>