<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: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.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";}
.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";color:black'>So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'>As far as “compelling reason to remove them” let’s try this: There are no proposed routes for USBR 21, 25, 80, or 84 in these states. The only “proposed” routes are the opinion of one OSM mapper who is now banned. No state, regional, or local bicycle advocacy group or governmental agency is working on any of these routes. Is it your opinion that any OSM mapper can/should propose routes for the US Bicycle Route System free of consultation or communication with any other party?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'>You said before that “</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'>I strongly disagree that there's anything remotely resembling a consensus” on removing these from OSM. I think what you really meant was that you strongly disagree with the consensus. You are the only one arguing to keep them in the system. Here’re just some of the comments from OSM members:<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"'>Greg Troxel said: “We shouldn't be doing original research in determining things, but rather documenting things that exist. If there are signs and a published route, that's obviously a route. If an organization that is generally viewed as having the authority to determine a route has published a proposal (which is stronger than 6 what-if scenarios), then that's fair to be in as proposed. But as I understand the situation, a cognizant organization has published a target corridor, not a proposed route.”<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"'>Nathan Mills said “On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR number or no.<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=MsoPlainText>Andy Allen said: "over-enthusiastic mappers are making up their own proposals directly into OSM." And “they should only be proposed by an organization that has relevant authority to create a route, usually this is clear for a given country.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Alex Barth said: “I would propose to remove them then.” And “If that's the situation it seems we have a clear cut case at hand: the routes in question just aren't `proposed`.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Richard Welty said “if the route doesn't exist yet as a firm line on the map, it has no business being in the core OSM database.<o:p></o:p></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"'>Paul, show me the comments (besides yours) that support keeping these routes in OSM.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'>Kerry Irons<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'>Adventure Cycling Association<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:black'><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> Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> OpenStreetMap talk-us list<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><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM, KerryIrons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<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'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue'>It sounds like you want to add a feature to OSM/OCM so that the corridors can be shown. From a mapping standpoint, I don’t see what this accomplishes since the AASHTO map was created at the “50,000 foot level” and putting corridors on OSM/OCM simply supplies that level of fuzziness to another map.</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It also provides for better, more precise visualization of what's in that corridor, which would be an important advocacy tool.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <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'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue'>It seems like you are going to resist removing these routes at any turn.</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>I've yet to hear a compelling reason to remove them. I'd love to hear it if you have it, but "it makes your life harder" or "the renderer doesn't show it right" really doesn't qualify.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>