[Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
KerryIrons
irons54vortex at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jun 6 14:32:42 UTC 2013
Yes, these routes have been labeled with USBR numbers. This is the issue I
raised back in March and the only issue of concern. I asked the person who
did the labeling to remove the labels and he did not. I find subsequently
that he has been banned. Steve All of California has agreed to help in
removing those tags. Others who are interested in this issue can contact me
off-list.
Kerry Irons
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM
To: KerryIrons
Cc: 'Greg Troxel'; 'Frederik Ramm'; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
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
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list