<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. </div><div><br>On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman <<a href="mailto:darrell@garnix.org">darrell@garnix.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. </div><div><br></div><div>They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing sites. </div><div><br></div><div>d. </div><div><br>On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, "KerryIrons" <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue">Paul, <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue">You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “</span>would be an important advocacy tool.”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue">That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue">I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue">Kerry Irons<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Schoolbook","serif";color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></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:<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM<br><b>To:</b> OpenStreetMap talk-us list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons <<a href="mailto:irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">irons54vortex@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Talk-us mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Talk-us mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>