[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[stevea]

>On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>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".

Proposed bicycle routes rendering as dashed lines are VERY useful to 
us (in California, and I suspect many other places as well).  There 
is an entire countywide proposal ("CycleNet") being watched by five 
jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County via the Regional Transportation 
Commission, and even CalTrans.  All of the routes are proposed, and 
there are public meetings pending which are deciding 
if/how/whether/when which routes go from proposed to actual.  Signage 
happens AFTER the routes are approved:  that's the usual distinction 
between proposed and actual routes.  (Though see below:  one can 
imagine a case immediately after approval when signs have not yet 
gone up -- this is usually a rather temporary condition).

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>AFAIK, opencyclemap.org displays them with dashed or dotted lines somehow.

It is simply the "state=proposed" tag which Andy Allan's opencyclemap 
respects:  if present in the route relation, dashed lines, if not, 
solid lines.  That is why it is valuable:  people can properly 
visualize proposed bicycle routes in OSM (as dashed lines) and then 
when they get approved (by the appropriate agency, after public 
process -- part of which includes the very important step of 
visualization of the route) simply remove the "state=proposed" tag, 
and at next render (a few days at most), the dashes become solid. 
This a highly effective way to use our map with regard to planning 
and implementing bicycle routing.  (Thanks, Andy!)

>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.

No, having proposed routes is highly valuable:  it foments and 
encourages public discussion at precisely the level of government 
that corresponds to the level the bicycle route is found in the 
hierarchy (local, state or national).  OSM visualizations of proposed 
routings allow wide, democratic exposure to proposed routes.

>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.

In the USA, AASHTO absolutely IS the organization that approves 
Interstate and USBR numbering (corresponding to network=ncn in OSM). 
They are not some third-party, they are THE party who does it.

>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.

I disagree with you for good reason:  an AASHTO approved route (it is 
APPROVED!) SHOULD be signposted and MAY be entered into OSM without 
the state=proposed tag.  After all, it is a real route, even if signs 
are still not up (perhaps they are being produced or installed).  I 
sure would like to have a map (Cycle Map layer is terrific) with a 
solid line showing me a bicycle route I intend to ride, ESPECIALLY if 
it is real, but as of yet un-signposted.  Else, how would you follow 
the route?!  A signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO (at 
least at the USBR/national/ncn level) is impossible, at least in the 
USA.  Many will agree that AASHTO is quite slow (decades) to approve 
USBR numbering, which explains why there are so few actual ncn 
routes.  But after having just a handful since the 1970s, in the last 
few years we've seen it go up to over a dozen:  the "dam has finally 
burst" and ACA and AASHTO are finally making some progress.  OSM 
should accurately reflect this, and Kerry is working hard to do just 
this.

If Kerry wants me to, I can take it upon myself to remove the tags 
she wants removed.  But I would prefer she do it herself, as the ACA 
is the "feed organization" that is largely "sponsoring" the USBR 
numbering to AASHTO.  Kerry, feel free to contact me either here or 
via the email address you have from corresponding with me back in 
mid-March of this year, and I'd be delighted to help reach consensus 
upon how OSM tags properly reflect the semantics you believe ACA (and 
perhaps AASHTO) mean to convey in the map.

SteveA
California