[Tagging] [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Paul Johnson]

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.
On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, "KerryIrons" <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Paul, ****
>
> ** **
>
> You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be
> an important advocacy tool.”****
>
> ** **
>
> That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.”****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry Irons****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM
> *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons <irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:****
>
> 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.****
>
>
> 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.****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130614/1e5c9cb7/attachment.html>