[Talk-us] U.S. Bike Route 76

[Adam Killian]

Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Ngày 3/11/09 8:48 PM, Paul Johnson vie^'t:
>> Spencer Riddile wrote:
>>   
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> What would the advantage/disadvantage be of using a different network
>>> name ("usbrs" vs. "ncn") for U.S. bike routes.  The author of open cycle
>>> map would have to adjust their symbolization if we started using
>>> "usbrs".  Is it good to try to keep some international standard even
>>> though trail and route systems may be different in various ways.
>>>     
>>
>> Plus there are areas in the US that are already using the ncn/rcn/lcn
>> convention so cyclemap renders things properly.  This breaks down pretty
>> nicely for cycleways that front US and Interstates as well as the 2
>> designated NCNs in the US (as ncn), state owned routes as rcn and city
>> and county maintained routes as LCN (such as the 40 Mile Loop and
>> Portland/Salem/Eugene's bicycle boulevards and city greenways).
>>   
> Pennsylvania seems to be tagging trails as NCNs pretty extensively on 
> what probably aren't existing or proposed U.S. Bike Routes. [1] I'm 
> guessing that's to get the trails to appear more prominently at lower 
> zoom levels.
>
> [1] For example, BikePA Route S: 
> http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=11&lat=40.18381&lon=-80.23126&layers=B000
> -- 
> Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
> AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at 1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>   

I did those Pennsylvania trails when the cyclemap first came out under 
the rationale that a US state is about the same size as a European 
country. As you say, to get them to render at similar zoom levels. I 
know a state is not a nation, but neither is it a region.