[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[KerryIrons]

Some clarification is needed.

It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes.  But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as having a USBR route number.  This is the only thing I
am seeking to have corrected.  

I won't go into the political difficulties that can arise when a state,
county, or community finds that OSM shows a USBR going through their
jurisdiction when they know nothing about it (AASHTO requires their approval
before designating a USBR).

I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
approved USBRs.  In some cases there is a process underway to get a route
number assigned (as I noted) but in other cases there has been no project
initiated.  Someone's perception of "this would make a good US Bicycle
Route" is not, in my opinion, a justifiable rationale to start assigning
route numbers at the mapper's discretion.  It would be no different if
someone thought an existing local road should be a state route, or a state
route should be a federal route, and then put those tags on an OSM map.

If I am misunderstanding how OSM works, please enlighten me.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:20 PM
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

Hi,

On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I am mostly not mapping in the US,

me neither...

> but I'd like to raise awareness that
> in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a 
> problem as long as they are mapped as "proposed" and not as "in place".

AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.

An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily check the
correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are unlikely to be
signposted, having them in OSM is questionable.

On the other hand, I take exception at the original poster's apparent
insistence on "routes approved by AASHTO". Whether or not a certain route
has been approved by a certain third organisation is not usually something
that OSM would care about. The usual OSM approach would be that if a route
is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then not.

An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be
mapped; and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every
right to be mapped.

Just my $.02 though.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us