<div dir="ltr"><div>I am involved in similar work for the Bicitalia bicycle route network here in Italy.<br></div><div>To be honest I had not considered even the possibility of considering this an import.<br></div><div>The approach has been:<br>
</div><div>Where already signposted the Bicitalia routes get inserted as normal relations.<br></div><div>Where the routes were inserted in the final proposal phase, this happened in the following way:<br></div><div>I checked manually in the map every single way both for geometry and tagging, and then inserted it into a relation with status=proposed.<br>
</div><div>Checking for geometry is necessary because we have a couple of mappers in the area who put ways into the map, from areal photography, with TIGER1 precision, obviously not good enough for cycling. Sometimes ways would be missing altogether.<br>
</div><div>We selected status=proposed for these reasons:<br></div><div>1) the route shows up as dashed on OpenCycleMap<br></div><div>2) as most, if not all ways of the routes, are already existent and can be used, it is useful for cyclists <br>
</div><div>3) a map with dashed lines is a very useful tool when talking to administrators, especially as you can see in this way how they are inserted into the cycling infrastructure (i.e. cycle paths and cycle lanes.)<br>
</div><div>4) the conversion to the final implementation of the route is easy<br></div><div><br></div><div>In our experience point 3 has been particularly helpful.<br></div><div><br>I think as this is a very manual and gradual process; I would not call it an import.<br>
<br></div><div>Volker<br></div><div>Padova, Italy<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 June 2014 00:43, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea)<br>
2. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski)<br>
3. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Ian Dees)<br>
4. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Serge Wroclawski)<br>
5. Re: USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (Frederik Ramm)<br>
6. USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers (stevea)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:10 -0700<br>
From: stevea <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID: <p06240801cfafd4d2c6ad@[192.168.31.124]><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
OSM's USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers to help map new<br>
APPROVED United States Bicycle Routes. Please see<br>
<<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System</a>><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System</a><br>
, a reference and status report for the project. Effective<br>
immediately,<br>
<br>
USBR 1 in Massachusetts<br>
USBR 10 in Washington state<br>
USBR 36 and 37 in Illinois<br>
USBR 50 in the District of Columbia and<br>
USBR 50 in Ohio<br>
<br>
were declared by AASHTO as approved national routes. These are<br>
essentially equivalent to freshly opened Interstate highways, except<br>
these are for bicycles. Very helpful would be additional experienced<br>
OSM volunteers, comfortable editing OSM relations, to<br>
improve/complete USBRs 1, 10, 37 and 50 (in Ohio) by adding<br>
additional route members to a relation from a soft-copy map or text<br>
description of the route.<br>
<br>
If you wish to help build our national bicycle network in OSM, please<br>
contact me to obtain route data to enter into OSM. The wiki offers<br>
technical/tagging guidance, as well as acts as a progress reporting<br>
mechanism.<br>
<br>
It is important to communicate your intentions and progress via email<br>
or preferably wiki. The project has established process and enjoys<br>
new growth by asking widely for additional volunteers, so please pay<br>
attention to the many moving parts by keeping communication flowing<br>
where it needs to. (Get route data via email, wiki update your<br>
progress). USBRS is ~10,000 kilometers and has momentum to grow to<br>
20,000 in the medium-term future. Help out by adopting a route near<br>
you!<br>
<br>
Though this work isn't difficult, each route might take a few hours<br>
of effort starting with an email. After you complete a route in OSM,<br>
one reward is to see the red line of a new, official USBR blossom in<br>
Cycle Map layer. Other rewards happen for on-the-ground participants<br>
(cities, counties, state DOTs, the public, stakeholders, bicycle<br>
coalition groups...), who see the route in our widely available map.<br>
This encourages more routes to emerge in a geographically friendly<br>
way, facilitating harmonious progress and further growth in our<br>
national bicycle network.<br>
<br>
To begin your contributions to this OSM WikiProject, reply using<br>
steveaOSM at softworkers (dot) com. Put "USBR mapping in OSM" in the<br>
Subject line and say where you'd like to map. Thank you!<br>
<br>
SteveA<br>
California<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/6c6a095c/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/6c6a095c/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:06:08 -0400<br>
From: Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: stevea <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADbCdJg8u7cqigzTKWvi3e1=<a href="mailto:PATtNU9ddgNXASmb5upQETS8jA@mail.gmail.com">PATtNU9ddgNXASmb5upQETS8jA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should be<br>
following the import guidelines.<br>
<br>
- Serge<br>
On May 31, 2014 3:19 PM, "stevea" <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> OSM's USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers to help map new APPROVED<br>
> United States Bicycle Routes. Please see<br>
> <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System</a><br>
> , a reference and status report for the project. Effective immediately,<br>
><br>
> USBR 1 in Massachusetts<br>
> USBR 10 in Washington state<br>
> USBR 36 and 37 in Illinois<br>
> USBR 50 in the District of Columbia and<br>
> USBR 50 in Ohio<br>
><br>
> were declared by AASHTO as approved national routes. These are<br>
> essentially equivalent to freshly opened Interstate highways, except these<br>
> are for bicycles. Very helpful would be additional experienced OSM<br>
> volunteers, comfortable editing OSM relations, to improve/complete USBRs 1,<br>
> 10, 37 and 50 (in Ohio) by adding additional route members to a relation<br>
> from a soft-copy map or text description of the route.<br>
><br>
> If you wish to help build our national bicycle network in OSM, please<br>
> contact me to obtain route data to enter into OSM. The wiki offers<br>
> technical/tagging guidance, as well as acts as a progress reporting<br>
> mechanism.<br>
><br>
> It is important to communicate your intentions and progress via email or<br>
> preferably wiki. The project has established process and enjoys new growth<br>
> by asking widely for additional volunteers, so please pay attention to the<br>
> many moving parts by keeping communication flowing where it needs to. (Get<br>
> route data via email, wiki update your progress). USBRS is ~10,000<br>
> kilometers and has momentum to grow to 20,000 in the medium-term future.<br>
> Help out by adopting a route near you!<br>
><br>
> Though this work isn't difficult, each route might take a few hours of<br>
> effort starting with an email. After you complete a route in OSM, one<br>
> reward is to see the red line of a new, official USBR blossom in Cycle Map<br>
> layer. Other rewards happen for on-the-ground participants (cities,<br>
> counties, state DOTs, the public, stakeholders, bicycle coalition<br>
> groups...), who see the route in our widely available map. This encourages<br>
> more routes to emerge in a geographically friendly way, facilitating<br>
> harmonious progress and further growth in our national bicycle network.<br>
><br>
> To begin your contributions to this OSM WikiProject, reply using steveaOSM<br>
> at softworkers (dot) com. Put "USBR mapping in OSM" in the Subject line<br>
> and say where you'd like to map. Thank you!<br>
><br>
> SteveA<br>
> California<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-us mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/65010752/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/65010752/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:24:21 -0500<br>
From: Ian Dees <<a href="mailto:ian.dees@gmail.com">ian.dees@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: stevea <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Openstreetmap" <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAG91b3QF6UWenrb-71rOono84SOCbeLA4x%2BDk2AUDp36QNip6w@mail.gmail.com">CAG91b3QF6UWenrb-71rOono84SOCbeLA4x+Dk2AUDp36QNip6w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Since there is no signage for these routes, this is an import and should<br>
> be following the import guidelines.<br>
><br>
How is this any different than adding bus routes? Are we considering those<br>
imports now, too?<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/988d1718/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140531/988d1718/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:33:48 -0400<br>
From: Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Ian Dees <<a href="mailto:ian.dees@gmail.com">ian.dees@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: stevea <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Openstreetmap" <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADbCdJig5QF0yE=<a href="mailto:7s2cGX9k9PMvP7f16R3gfNnu_YgMZzL2THQ@mail.gmail.com">7s2cGX9k9PMvP7f16R3gfNnu_YgMZzL2THQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
<br>
Ian,<br>
<br>
OpenTripPlanner can handle routing, which is a pretty core part of<br>
handling bus data. OpenTripPlanner can also be fed directly from the<br>
GTFS data from the transit authority, which simplifies updates, etc.,<br>
making a really ideal choice for applications where you want to work<br>
with local transit data.<br>
<br>
- Serge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:40:30 +0200<br>
From: Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:538A4C4E.8060902@remote.org">538A4C4E.8060902@remote.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
On 05/31/2014 11:24 PM, Ian Dees wrote:<br>
> How is this any different than adding bus routes? Are we considering<br>
> those imports now, too?<br>
<br>
The difference between an import and normal manual mapping is usually<br>
not *what* gets into OSM but *how*.<br>
<br>
If someone deducts bus routes because they travel on the bus frequently,<br>
or they know from signage where the bus goes, or they see the bus, or<br>
maybe even take an educated guess because they know the area, and they<br>
then map the bus route, nobody has an issue with that and they certainly<br>
don't need to discuss that with the community first.<br>
<br>
If someone starts a project that says "hey, please everybody help get<br>
this bus route data set into OSM", then it is an import and they should<br>
seek community buy-in first.<br>
<br>
This whole un-signposted-cycle-route discussion has been going back and<br>
forth between stevea and DWG for a while; the underlying problem was not<br>
so much whether this was an import or not (that only came up later), but<br>
whether routes that cannot be verified on the ground (other than looking<br>
them up in material provided by the authority that defined the route)<br>
have a place in OSM at all.<br>
<br>
My personal suggestion in this matter has been: Technically it is not ok<br>
(because not verifiable easily enough) but hey, it will be tolerated if<br>
you don't make a big deal of it. Now that stevea has chosen to disregard<br>
my friendly advice and make a big deal of it by seeking people to help<br>
him import this data set, I believe we should have a broader discussion<br>
about whether such material that is not verifiable on the ground should<br>
be accepted into OSM at all.<br>
<br>
Bye<br>
Frederik<br>
<br>
--<br>
Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:43:13 -0700<br>
From: stevea <<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: [Talk-us] USBRS WikiProject seeks volunteer mappers<br>
Message-ID: <p0624080ccfb004f60f09@[192.168.31.124]><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"<br>
<br>
Sigh.<br>
<br>
Frederick: I very much appreciate the time the DWG took to offer me<br>
friendly advice. My understanding was that advice was about putting<br>
PROPOSED routes (USBRs) into OSM, and I was VERY careful to NOT do<br>
that with my recent request. These are ACTUAL routes which are<br>
approved by AASHTO, which essentially equates them with USA<br>
Interstate Highways, a "highest class" object in OSM. They do not<br>
have signs on them because they were approved/announced YESTERDAY!<br>
The "ribbons have just been cut."<br>
<br>
I do my utmost to tread lightly as I continue this discussion, as I<br>
don't want to be blocked, banned, nor see further development of<br>
USBRs into OSM diminished. (You'll note that no new proposed USBRs<br>
have been added since the DWG decision, showing my respect for you,<br>
Serge, the DWG and its decision). However, I do wish to defend my<br>
position as being blind-sided here, as you actually did "change the<br>
rules mid-stream" on me (us, all of OSM) by making changes to the<br>
"Proposed" wiki page. Nevertheless, that is not the issue here.<br>
<br>
It seems to me we already have "community buy-in:" not only has the<br>
process of USBRs been going on for years, but it was I who untangled<br>
the NE2 mess before he was banned, and I recently spoke about how<br>
careful and conservative was the approach we took for the better part<br>
of all of 2013 and early 2014. There has appeared to me and many<br>
others virtually nothing but accolades and thanks for getting this<br>
done and putting the USBRS into OSM. It really does seem as<br>
important as Interstate highways, but for bicyclists.<br>
<br>
As I read Serge's suggestion that "this is an import and should be<br>
following the import guidelines" I am now reading the Import<br>
Guidelines and discover that I have already followed many of the<br>
steps in there: out of the five steps, 1) Prerequisites and 2)<br>
Community Buy-in, and a substantial portion of 3) Documentation have<br>
already been followed. Even most of step 5) Uploading has been<br>
followed. It appears that what is substantially lacking on my part<br>
(should we agree that "this is an import" and Import Guidelines MUST<br>
be followed) is step 4) Import Review. I am certainly ready, willing<br>
and able to complete these steps. Perhaps I should even apologize<br>
for not doing so. Because I did not characterize this (in my mind)<br>
as "an import," that is my only excuse. But as I have now been told<br>
it is (it is?) I do hereby apologize for not following Guidelines.<br>
<br>
As for the wider discussion about "not verifiable on the ground"<br>
(USBRs are "verifiable" but not always "verifiable ON THE GROUND"<br>
because they may or may not be signed). In the USA, there are<br>
THOUSANDS of county roads which are also unsigned, but because a<br>
county Public Works Department or state DOT authority SAYS they exist<br>
with a particular name and/or number, they are widely known by the<br>
public as such. Hence, not only OUGHT they be in OpenSTREETMap<br>
(STREET is our middle name!) THEY ARE in OSM! Would it be correct to<br>
delete these thousands of roads simply because they are poorly-signed<br>
or unsigned? What about the miles and miles of Interstate highway<br>
concrete that roll by without a red-white-and-blue Interstate shield?<br>
Should relation members where there is no sign be removed from OSM's<br>
Interstate relations? I think not. The threat of massive data like<br>
this disappearing in OSM should make all of us think twice about a<br>
strict requirement of "on the ground verifiability."<br>
<br>
We also made a similar "exception" for boundaries/borders: these are<br>
not verifiable "on the ground" but we still do allow them in our map,<br>
as in today's world of this-country, that-state and county-whatever,<br>
the map would be much less useful without them. For what it is<br>
worth, I feel the same way about (actual) USBRs.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that proposals can get messy and ambiguous and so I<br>
have toned down the volume on new ones to zero. We reached an<br>
understanding about those, and that understanding includes agreement.<br>
<br>
I did not think that my solicitation for volunteers (of ACTUAL routes<br>
only, not proposed ones) would have results like this -- I didn't<br>
wish to "tug on Superman's cape" if I thought it would. And I<br>
certainly do not wish any downside to my own efforts in OSM, like<br>
being banned or blocked, as I have been an enthusiastic and<br>
ridiculously passionate OSM contributor and volunteer for over five<br>
years.<br>
<br>
But now that it has, I do thank you for a civil and hopefully<br>
fruitful discussion about these topics in a wider forum.<br>
<br>
Most sincerely,<br>
<br>
SteveA<br>
California<br>
<br>
<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="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 78, Issue 32<br>
***************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>