[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Russ Nelson]

Are these bicycle routes being labeled USBR-## ? If they're not, I
don't see the problem. If they are being labeleed USBR-## incorrectly,
well, that's incorrect. I haven't read in detail every message on this
thread -- are there example USBR bicycle routes in OSM that we could
look at?

KerryIrons writes:
 > Again, a number of points of clarification are needed.
 > 
 > First, there is a single body in the US for assigning numbers to US Bicycle
 > Routes.  AASHTO owns the process, just as they do for all federal highways
 > in the US.  There can be any number of state and local bicycle routes,
 > proposed or implemented, but those are not USBRs until AASHTO approves
 > designation.
 > 
 > The process for doing this can vary but it culminates with a state
 > department of transportation submitting an application to AASHTO to approve
 > proposed numbering.  Once AASHTO approves (they have never declined an
 > application) the route is officially a USBR.  While AASHTO encourages
 > signing of USBRs there is no signing requirement so a route can exist "on
 > paper" (and on the Internet) but not have any signs posted.  When a project
 > is initiated to get a section of a USBR approved within a state, the first
 > step is to define a proposed route, but there can be many revisions to that
 > route as it gains local jurisdiction approvals (required) for each route
 > section.  There is no problem with showing these proposed routes on OSM but
 > tagging them with USBR numbers can create significant work for the approval
 > process team due to "ruffled feathers" at the local jurisdiction level.
 > 
 > You can look at the USBR corridor plan at
 > www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/national-co
 > rridor-plan/  The corridors are roughly 50 mile wide area in which a route
 > could be defined.  Just because a corridor exists does not mean that any
 > specific road/street/trail has been defined as part of the route.  On the
 > corridor map, a solid dark line means the route is approved by AASHTO, a
 > shadowed and colored line means that the corridor exists but no route is
 > defined, and a grey line means that a corridor could be added along that
 > path.  A corridor is a concept for future development of a route.  It is not
 > a route.
 > 
 > It should be noted that there is a lot of history to the USBRS that explains
 > the heretofore slow pace of route implementation.  It is inaccurate and
 > unfair to blame any one organization for that slow pace.  As of now there
 > are 5,600 miles of designated routes and many more are being developed.
 > 
 > As to whether the concerns I have raised are a mountain or a molehill, I
 > would simply say that those who want to ignore the political realities of
 > getting a route approved need to walk a mile in the shoes of those doing the
 > actual work.  Spending hours explaining why a route is not going through a
 > given community, even though there is a map somewhere showing that it does,
 > is not seen by a project team as a good use of their time.  Spending hours
 > trying to convince a community to accept a route when they feel it is being
 > shoved down their throat because it appeared on a map before they ever heard
 > about it is not a good way to spend time either.
 > 
 > My only goal here is to keep the OSM efforts in synch with the efforts of
 > various USBR project teams across the US.  There is no point in creating
 > extra work for the project teams or for OSM mappers.
 > 
 > 
 > Kerry Irons
 > Adventure Cycling Association
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Greg Troxel [mailto:gdt at ir.bbn.com] 
 > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:02 PM
 > To: Frederik Ramm
 > Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
 > 
 > 
 > Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> writes:
 > 
 > > 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.
 > 
 > I see verifiability as having a broader sense.  In the case of officially
 > proposed USBR routes, someone who is local can look up the government
 > documents, meeting minutes, or whatever and determine if the route numbering
 > authority has in fact put the route into proposed status.  That's
 > essentially what Kerry is talking about.  That's beyond looking at signs,
 > but some things on the map aren't obvious from standing near them - official
 > names are a complicated mix of signs on the ground, meeting minutes from
 > naming authorities, 911 or tax databases, etc.  To me, the point is that one
 > can determine an answer by observing evidence, and reasonable people can
 > discuss the total evidence and come to rough consensus.
 > 
 > > 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
 > 
 > I don't see that at all. For a US highway, there is some part of the federal
 > bureaucracy that assigns highway numbers.  A road is a US highway if it's
 > officially been designated, and the signs are expected to keep up with that
 > offiical designation.  If there's a case where a road has been designated as
 > a US highway, and the locals know it, but there are no signs (Because
 > they've been stolen, or because there was no budget to put them up, or the
 > sign people are on strike, or they've all been knocked down in winter car
 > accidents, or whatever), then it's still proper to tag it as a US highway.
 > 
 > > that if a route is signposted, then it can be mapped - if not, then 
 > > not.
 > 
 > I do agree that tagging a highway because one wishes that it were otherwise
 > is bogus.  But as long as a local mapper is determing a form of reality by
 > relatively objective means, I don't see a problem.
 > 
 > > An AASHTO approved route that is not signposted would not normally be 
 > > mapped;
 > 
 > I think there may be a bit of terminology confusion: Kerry seems to mean
 > "approved" as "approved by the numbering authority as a proposed route which
 > has not yet been constructed/signed".  That's similar to "the government has
 > decided to extend I-101 on these 10 miles, but hasn't built it yet".  So
 > either it's ok to show it, or we should remove all highway=proposed.  But I
 > think it's useful to have highway=proposed, so that those who want can
 > render it.  highway=proposed is still subject to crowdsourcing editing and
 > quality control, and should mean that the cognizant naming authority has
 > published a specific plan.
 > 
 > I think this is the crux of Kerry's point - proposed cycle routes only make
 > sense if the authority that controls the relevant ref namespace has actually
 > proposed them.  So even from your verfiability concern viewpoint, I think if
 > people did as Kerry asked, there would be far fewer proposed routes in the
 > db, and all of them would be widely recognized as legitimately and actually
 > proposed.
 > 
 > > and a signposted route that is not approved by AASHTO has every right 
 > > to be mapped.
 > 
 > This is similar to what would happen if someone put up "US 99" signs on
 > their little side street, just because they were in the mood and had signs
 > and a hammer and nails.  That doesn't make it US 99 -- it's just simple
 > vandalism -- , if other evidence says it's not true.  This is really the
 > same situation.
 > 
 > Now if the guerilla route is not in an official namespace, and the signs
 > persist, then I have no issue with it being mapped.
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Talk-us mailing list
 > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us