[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2013-06-05 3:40 PM, KerryIrons wrote:
> 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.

Along these lines, my opinion is that a proposed route number _may_ be 
tagged if (but only if) the number has currency beyond aspirational 
planning documents. To borrow the language of linguistics, OSM is 
descriptive, not prescriptive. For those who missed the discussion in 
March, here are two cases in point:

  - In Kentucky, two informal touring routes were tagged network=ncn, 
cycle_network=US:US, ref=21/25, state=proposed. AFAICT, these numbers 
have yet to be associated with a specific route designation proposal in 
Kentucky, so I removed them. [1] (The badges will eventually disappear 
from OpenCycleMap.)

  - Ohio has taken concrete steps towards implementing Route 50. The 
proposal is being developed in full public view, with local authorities 
in seven counties passing resolutions of support. [2] Some of the 
resolutions even stipulate the number 50 and a specific route. [3] For 
these seven counties, the route is currently tagged network=ncn, 
cycle_network=US:US, ref=50, state=proposed. The result is a dotted line 
with a badge, making it easy for people to keep tabs on the project's 
progress.

The key here is that the route has been proposed and promoted but not 
yet approved. Sure, there's always a chance AASHTO will tweak or reject 
the proposal after it's finalized and officially submitted, but the good 
news is that OSM will be fixed if that happens. The same can't be said 
of those resolutions. :-)

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16442009
[2] 
http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/a-trip-to-the-midwest-update-on-indiana-and-ohio/
[3] http://ci.london.oh.us/files/Resolution%20138-12.pdf

-- 
Minh Nguyen <mxn at 1ec5.org>
Jabber: mxn at 1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/