[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